Talk:Battle of Kursk

Blitzkrieg – establishing consensus for the wordings

Is there a reason why the discussion is cordoned off in collapsible sections? Should the discussion not be open and freely viewed? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Irondome thinks it is a good idea, and I think it is as well. But if you think it isn't, then sure, it can be undone. Normally, I wouldn't mind if the discussion paralyzes the poll as it is now. But I just think it would be fair to let the poll remain fully vibrant through its duration. But if you don't think so, then I will be more than happy undo it. EyeTruth (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let us allow the editors to see the discussion. Please remove the collapsible sections. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. EyeTruth (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It was a space issue, might freak other new eds out from contributing. If you want it undone, ive no probs with that GBD. I am trying to take a different path on the wording of V1 BTW. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

EyeTruth, I would like to see a version of V1 incorporating my proposed extra sentence (see hatted V1 comments for detail.) I believe it adds to it, and leads more logically to the debate on blitzkrieg linked in the notes. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The biggest issues with Version 1 are the weasel phrases and original interpretation of sources. As for your proposal, the sentence takes "blitzkrieg" too seriously, as if it were a formally/officially structured system. "Blitzkrieg", in a way, is not too different from saying stuff like "guerrilla warfare" or "armoured warfare" or any other term in such class, in that these are just nebulous terms that would carry very slightly different specific meanings from one author to another. Yet, there is a generally accepted concept at the core of each term. Blitzkrieg is not like Deep Battle which is acutely precise. Even my own wording for V2 may still need some more improvement. It still sounds a tiny bit awkward to my ears. Saying, for example, "Citadel envisioned an armoured warfare", to my ears make it as if armoured warfare is some formally structured and well-defined system that Citadel was striving to follow. I've been thinking of even a better wording for it. P.S, or maybe it is only in my head that the word "envision" sounds awkward.EyeTruth (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It might be better to phrase your statement "The main problems I have with Version 1 ..." Less presumptive, and allows the other editors to make their own assessment. Now I did query you some eight days ago and am still awaiting a response: Are you saying you think the text in the body of the article is original synthesis, or are you referring to the wording in the notation? Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The statement above in the body of the text is descriptive of the events. There is not a whit of original synthesis. Accusing it of being such is baseless, and should be disregarded by the other editors. The text simply describes events as they were planned.

As to the footnote, it opens the door into the question of whether or not the action should be characterized as a blitzkrieg. I believe it is far too complex to describe this question adequately in the footnote, but it gets you in the door. The fact that Guderian strongly opposed the operation is significant. If the mind that shaped the ideas that became blitzkrieg warfare opposed the plan, it indicates he did not see this fitting the pattern that generated Germany’s earlier successes, and in fact in examining the plan we can see that is just so. Guderian would never propose using the armoured forces to attack a fortified salient, especially if it were known months in advance that the attack was coming. And an envelopment leading to the annihilation of the defenders in a Battle of Cannae? This was the type of battle plan favored by Adolf Hitler and some of the traditionalists in the German General Staff, but was not the style of plan that won Germany her early victories, where the panzer forces strove for deep penetration striking at the command and communication centers to disrupt the defense, moving faster than the ability of the defender to react, causing general panic in the defenders and paralysis in the opponents command. Equating the two is to confuse the issue. Here is Ron Lewin touching on the matter:

Those military critics who are inclined to be contemptuous of the performance of the French in the summer of 1940 might well consider how the British response to Rommel’s attack in the spring of 1941 provides a classic case of what can happen when inexperienced troops are unexpectedly exposed to a Blitzkrieg. A chain reaction occurs. Surprise breeds shock, shock breeds disorganization and loss of morale; these breed unnecessary errors and the sum is a disaster.

With no surprise there is no psychological element and no blitzkrieg. Guderian knew this well. The term should not be used in the section describing the German plans, which hoped to overpower and envelope, rather than surprise and strike deep. A better place to use the term blitzkrieg would be in a discussion section at the end of the article, where these contrasts can be laid out and the reader could learn of the differences. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Version 1

Content

The plan was code named Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel). The operation was to feature a double envelopment with pincers originating from the bases of the salient and directed at Kursk which would surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient.

The notes and references for the above excerpt:

Comments for Version 1

• Comment for:

This is a cleaner version. It describes the plan succinctly, and nothing more is needed in the seciton titled "German plans and preparations". If a discussion of whether or not the plan was intended to recreate the "blitzkrieg" offensives of the early war is desired, this can easily be done later in the article in a discussion section at the end. Here early in the article we are attempting to get the reader up to speed as to what the German military was attempting. Throwing in a vague term like blitzkrieg muddles the picture and is best avoided at this stage of the article.Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment against:

While this version1 is indeed two sentences shorter, it denies the reader the knowledge of a perspective supported by several well-reputed WWII historians like David Glantz and Niklas Zetterling, among others. Although these historians may not necessarily be correct, yet withholding such information insinuates that they are considered to be on the fringe by the history community, which is not the case. Also this version1 makes frequent use of weasel words and phrases like "most commentators" or "a great number of military historians", etc. Granted, there are sources that make no mention of blitzkrieg with regards to Citadel, but this version1 attempts to give an original interpretation to this silence of several sources on the issue. Any such interpretation by editors is tantamount to original synthesis, irrespective of how likely correct it may be. EyeTruth (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In addition, one of Guderian's work cited as a source was written 6 years before Citadel. This source does not mention, describe, or even talk about blitzkrieg, yet it is being used to originally synthesize information directly associated with blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying you think the text in the body of the article is original synthesis, or are you referring to the wording in the notation? Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral Comment

The main problem that I have with this version is that it does not clearly state that many historians do not characterize in any way, but implies that they do not think that it is a blitzkrieg, which isn't quite right. And the Guderian cites don't work properly. How can he say it violates his principle for the use of armor before the war even started? I understand that that cite is for the actual principle, but that's not how it reads. I don't even think that you need to cite that, just his general statement as per the following cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well then, can we re-write it to address those issues? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

 Incorporated:Okay, well I see changes being made by other editors, so I assume we can address issues the editors bring out to improve the wording. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Additional wording suggestion

I suggest "There is no historical consensus as to the terminology of the offensive tactics employed by the German forces"(a) be placed at the end of the version. I think it is actually more precise. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That won't be quite right. Among sources presented, there is no dispute as of yet. Although that doesn't mean the historians claiming a blitzkrieg are necessarily correct. Nevertheless, the "dispute" is primarily among WP editors. EyeTruth (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Try the MK 2 version above. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Much more better... except that the Germans never really had any standard operational offensive doctrine. Hence the reason why the term blitzkrieg is still alive. Any operation the Wehrmacht conducted that involved concentration of armour, air force, emphasis on manoeuvre or speed, and envisioned encirclement, irrespective of how distinct the detailed methods of these operations might have been gets labelled blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Precisely the problem in a nutshell. My only issue with the above is encirclement. I am not convinced that is part of bk, whatever the hell bk actually is.. Try MK 3 :) I would like to see some kind of addition to V1 along these lines. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Better than before. Although that doesn't help the bigger issues with Version 1. Frieser, Barbier and Clark, all include encirclement in their definitions. (What do you think of putting all comments in a collapsible to keep the interface cleaner and make the poll less repulsive to the many voters who don't fancy long convo. A collapsible with the most basic format that is easy to navigate). EyeTruth (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be a great idea. We dont want to discourage participation. I think there is the "classic" grand bk strategic encirclement, such as the trapping of the French, Belgium and British armies in N France in may 40, and tactical encirclements as a by-product, such as Kiev, Smolensk. In that they were not designed as terminal knockout thrusts of themselves. If the amputation of an entire wing of a front and terminal disruption caused as in 40, then I would agree that encirclement is part of "grand blitzkrieg". But unsure what the above historians defs are. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A while ago, I posted a bunch of stuff from Frieser (page 1-10, I think) in a green collapsible above. His definition is there. It's too much work writing the others now (maybe later). Both Frieser and Clark mentioned decisive effects in their definition and Barbier mentioned of destructive effects. Minsk, Smolensk and Kiev were all decisive, operationally. EyeTruth (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tactically maybe, but they didnt win the campaign. If anything, Guderian seems to be asserting in parts of PL that the encirclements were a diversion of armoured resources and actually helped thwart the succesful drive to Moscow, that and Hs constant shifting of priorities.Irondome (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Guderian has nothing to do with any definition of blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not the definition, but the reality of success. Blitzkrieg appears to have been improvised from the lower levels. the Wehrmacht plans for Yellow were very conventional. It was Manstein, and divisional commanders like G and Rommel who implemented it that created the myth. Interesting exchange. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that Guderian rarely ever got exactly what he wanted. He considered deep penetration and speed more important than using tanks to complete encirclements. But this is not how things played out, thanks to Hitler and some others. In France 1940, the tanks ended up completing an encirclement. The Balkans campaigns weren't too different. Barbarossa featured one battle of encirclement after another, much to Guderian's chagrin. Summer of 1942 wasn't too different either.EyeTruth (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Guderian has nothing to do with any definition of blitzkrieg"?! The term blitzkrieg attempts to describe the "new" method of attack employed by the German army in the early part of the war that resulted in their stunning successes (Poland, France, Greece, and even in Russia). Guderian was central to those successes. Here is Erwin Rommel on the subject. "In Germany, thanks largely to the efforts of Guderian, the first traces of modern leadership in tank warfare began to crystallise in theory before the war. This resulted in the training and organization of tank units on modern lines.(quoted in Rommel the Desert Fox Desmond Young, 1950, p.254) He does not mention Hitler, and in fact Hitler repeatedly checked the advance of the armour in France and in Russia, as he did not understand what they were doing or why. It was Hitler, not the British, that stopped Guderian from reaching Dunkirk. The result was the BEF escaped.(The Second World War, Liddell Hart, 1970) Hitler claimed credit, certainly. He claimed Manstein's plan was his. But it was not. No offense, but thinking that the techniques developed by Germany's military men to use mobility, speed and surprise to defeat much larger forces decisively should be attributed to Hitler is nonsense. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are replying to. It is certainly not a reply to my post that precedes it, considering that what my post talks about has nothing to do with your reply. Who said the British stopped Guderian? Did anyone say Hitler deserves credit for the fall of France in 1940?. EyeTruth (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am replying to you. The first sentence in the reply, followed by a question mark and an exclamation point, is a quote from you just a few lines above. The rest is a response to that statement, and it shows the folly of trying to separate Guderian from "blitzkrieg". You would not have the one without the other. Really, EyeTruth, this sort of practiced obtuseness does not make for a compelling retort. Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to try to get the wording of the new sentence additional V1 right. I want to capture the idea of "Terminology" instead of using the term bk. The notes accompanying V1 serve to explore the lack of consensus well. I dont see the need to mention bk explicitly. It just adds to its layered intrinsic meaninglessness in this context. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Version 2

Content

The plan was code named Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel). According to some contemporary military historians, the operation envisioned a blitzkrieg, but some other military historians and many of the German participants, including von Manstein, made no mention of blitzkrieg in their characterization of the operation. The plan for the operation consisted of a double envelopment that was directed at Kursk to surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient.

The notes and references for the above excerpt:

Comments for Version 2

• Comment for:

This version conspicuously alerts the reader to the different views on the issue. This version completely avoids the use of weasel words like "most", "vast majority", etc. It also avoids original synthesis by not interpreting the silence of several sources on the issue to mean their opposition for the operation being characterized as a blitzkrieg, irrespective of how likely correct such an interpretation may be. This version assumes that original interpretations are best left to the reader. EyeTruth (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment against:

In describing the German plan of attack, this version takes the reader on a mini tour of the controversy over what should and what should not be characterized as a "blitzkrieg". It assumes there is a single understanding of the meaning of the term that all historians and miliary theorists agree upon, which is clearly not the case. In the notation section it gives its own mini pole, with various historians placed in one group or another, not defining what each means by this characterization. In doing so it avoids going to a straight description of the plans and meanders into matters off topic that do not increase the readers comprehension or understanding. In doing so it begs the question as to why such a discussion would be necessary in the main body of the description of the German plans. Whether or not the plan was an effort at a blitzkrieg, what that term might mean, how the attack differed from the offensives of 1939, 1940 and 1942, why it might be that the officers who created the great successes of the early going of the war were opposed to this particular offensive and what that might mean to the understanding of whether or not this attack should be considered in either its planning or its execution a blitzkrieg attack could all be handled better in a summary section discussing the battle, not in an opening section attempting to describe the plan. In placing the "They were planning to do a blitzkrieg" group first, it seems to weight this view as being the correct view. Clarity and brevity are preferred over obtuseness and circumlocution, and as such this version is less helpful to the reader. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment:@GBD. I believe this subject is developing into an entirely seperate short article. There is masses of info that we have now collated that would populate a useful piece. We could find a place to accomodate it, (dont know if there is a WW2 controversies section or similar). I would advocate that this is properly explored and it is linked to the Kursk piece. I would say we go with V2 for a period until such a piece can be created, which would be much more analytical and detailed. It may also be linked with the blitzkrieg article, it would ensure a good improvement in all these linked pieces I would say. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral comment

And this one also has the same problem with the Guderian quote. I gotta say that Pinkus and Moorhouse don't bring much to the table and I think that they should be deleted entirely. I'm fine with Barbier, Brand, Kasdorf and Willmott, though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 Incorporated: Guderian's quote was only included to satisfy the opposition. Moorhouse and Pinkus were added just for the sake of it and not because they are considered reputable. Moorhouse has more accolade under his belt than Pinkus. I totally agree with you on Pinkus, he shouldn't belong. EyeTruth (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well let us incorporate all the above suggestions. Does it make sense to list the Glantz/House book of 2004 and then list every page where the authors mentioned the term? Seems to be unnecessary. In the same way, to mention Glantz in the Glantz/House book, and then mention House separately, and again the pages where the term is used is repetitive. There were two authors, and they chose to use the term. Why belabor the point and be repetitious? Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Votes

(Vote on which version is preferable. Keep it simple and to the point. Big details can go in the comments above. Cheers)

I vote for Version 2. It's better. Caden ^cool 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Version 2. More direct, correct weight, NPOV. (Hohum ^@) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Version 1 It merely describes the plan without wandering off into "blitzkrieg" territory, which V2 mentions twice in a few words. The linked notes to V1 is perfectly sufficient for our readers to make their own determination if they wish to explore the "blitzkrieg no blitzkrieg" discussion. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Version 2. It captures the various views fairly. No weasel words, no original synthesis, unlike the other version. EyeTruth (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree DMorpheus2 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Version 1. It is cleaner in terms of explaining the German plan and avoids a vague term which has no universally understood meaning. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Version 1. This version (1) emphasizes historical fidelity and presents German plans as the Germans themselves would've presented them, relegating any mention of the ill-defined, potentially-misleading term blitzkrieg to a note that, nevertheless, remains immediately accessible to the reader. I don't think including blitzkrieg in the main body is explanatory or informative as much as it is trivial, and confusing, when the goal of that section should be to faithfully present the German plans, without the addition of pseudo-descriptive terms that the planners and high-level participants themselves did not use. Azx2 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Bias detected in the radar.  Resolved

Before anyone else votes, EyeTruth, I'd like to respectfully ask that you provide, above, a neutral comment for option #1 that explains what it is or why it may be preferable like you have for #2, or at least summarizes it such that there's not an obvious bias b/w how the two options are presented. I'm assuming you prepared the poll (correct me if I'm wrong), and while I don't at all think you intentionally set it up like this (w/ a glowing recommendation for one option, and a literally blank comment for the other!!), I don't think the poll as currently established allows for a fair, neutral sampling of opinion b/c one of the two options is being presented and described in a manner that makes it seem preferable. Thanks for your attention to this. Thanks. Azx2 20:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Quick comment. V2 manages to reflect the ambiguity in some RS usage of the term blitzkrieg. Thus it provokes a discussion on the accuracy of the term, and cites additional material for interested readers to explore. Ive always been uncomfortable with repeated use of BK in mainspace for reasons I gave upthread. This version allays my concerns to a good extent. I originally argued for 1 mainspace mention with balancing notes. This is as good a deal as we can get. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Azx2, sorry but I will decline that offer. I intentionally left it blank, given that I'm almost certain that Gunbirddriver will dislike any assessment I make in his place (I could be wrong). If it were an intended bias, then there would be no conspicuously blank space left for the comment. Frankly, anyone can go ahead and provide a comment there. But for the meantime, "pending" or anything else anyone prefers can go there. EyeTruth (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the quick reply, EyeTruth, here and on my TP. I understand your rationale, and it's no longer an issue since "Pending..." notation has been added. Now how do I strike-through that text above? Hmmm...lol. Cheers. Azx2 23:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC) It's all good, Azx2. You could just go ahead and add a comment for version 1. (I had a very honestly supportive comment for it but I can't be the writer). I will see how easy it will be to collapse this discussion so as to keep the interface simple for voters. (Some editors will flee from long discussion or its baby, and being a dude that thrives in verbosity I find collapsed text with a "succulent" heading to be a very effective solution). If you think it doesn't work well for this one, then please undo. (late signature) EyeTruth (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Version 2. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Version 2. It's common for people to think Tanks+WWII+Germans=Blitzkrieg, so some mention is needed; this doesn't go overly deep into the issue that Blitzkrieg isn't actually easy to define, yet doesn't mislead by avoiding it either, perhaps implying to some that it didn't have Tanks+WWII+Germans. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Consensus 07 September 2013 was agreed as the due date of the poll. The result above further reinforces the (result) summary of the DRN discussion. The editor consensus is clear. Three votes for version 1 and six for version 2. EyeTruth (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the previous discussion was closed as "Unresolved". I notice Binksternet and Sturmvogels reservations in that as to your pet thesis, but seemed to want a quiet life. This resolves nothing. Rather I see a chilling effect on eds who may have potentially contributed over the past week, due to other circumstances. Kursk was not a blitzkrieg, either attempted or failed. I see a 6 to 3 vote. I see no consensus. I do see an attempt to rewrite the history of this, a behaviour which I had not consciously noticed in you before. Irondome (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I wrote "result of the DRN discussion" and not that of the case. Never mind, if changing the word to "summary" helps you, then fine. Five of the seven editors that contributed in DRN voiced their supported for something along the lines of version 2. Granted, one of the five only reluctantly agreed to support it. In the above poll, six of nine editors that voted are in support of version 2. There is abundant editor-support; it certifies WP:NPOV and any other WP policy or guideline; it is thoroughly referenced with secondary and primary sources without any original synthesis. What else do you have against it? (If you just say that "Kursk was not a blitzkrieg, either attempted or failed", then that is precisely your own opinion). EyeTruth (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As the proposer of the cut-off date, I hereby withdraw my deadline, and would like to see this continue. Much has happened in that period. I see haste in your attempt to shut this debate down. Irondome (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Haste in my part? I even let it tally to a complete 14 days by adding 3 extra days to the deadline you set earlier. And now you are suggesting that it should go on indefinitely because it didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. EyeTruth (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

BS. I note an increasingly waspish and petulant tone, which I am also registering for the first time. I suggest you checlk article Battle of the Bulge. Now that was a blitzkrieg. Unlike Kursk Yet nowhere in the lede does the term arise. I wonder why? It is discussed much further down, with the 2 operational plans weighted in mainspace. It comes to the conclusion that plan 1, which I also assume you would consider BK, is found by sources not in fact to fit that description. Irondome (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-bs historians have said what they have to say. I'm not going to argue all this thing again. The version with the most vote gave a voice to each POV. Every criteria has been met: wikipedia policies & guidelines, references, sources and editor-support are all checked. Let's be frank, past this point, this dispute will only become a messy regurgitation. Nick-D please, if you can, get other admins into this. EyeTruth (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, I withdraw my timelimit proposal. Therefore, it is null and void. You appear to be attempting to control the agenda here. Are you baablaa? I expect a LOL any minute. Irondome (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's alright. Your time-limit has always had a substitute. In case you forgot, I never withdrew my support for a deadline of 03 September, and I'm sure that date has come and gone. In fact all the time limit (either by GDB, Irondome or EyeTruth) has come and gone. You say "Baablaa"? That tickles . EyeTruth (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Voting is still open. Much has happened since my original voting propsal, which I tabled directly to admin, was accepted. I withdraw it. It really is not your proposal to tinker with, to be frank. Irondome (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So why is there not a parallel argument om the Battle of the Bulge talkpage for BK to be included in the lede, in a much more clear cut case? I would suggest they did not have a POV pushing editor with a BK fetish. Irondome (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

After two weeks of discussions, there are three editors in favour of version 1 and five in favour of version 2. The rationales given for these preferences as part of the vote or in earlier discussions are all reasonable, so there's no grounds for any of these votes to be discounted. This isn't a consensus either way, so I'd suggest that the options are to a) go with version 2 if the people who favoured version 1 are happy enough with that (or vice-versa, of course) or b) continue the discussion but seek additional views by advertising it more broadly by posting neutrally-worded invitations on relevant project pages. For what it's worth, option a) seems better to me given that this has been discussed to death and it's unlikely that many more editors would comment (to be frank, the often bitter discussion about would be rather offputting), but I don't have any ability to impose this as a solution. What do other editors think? Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, it is actually six editors for V2, not five. BTW, what happens if the few in support of V1 continue to wage a war, what then? I think a new DRN may be helpful if those in support of V1 are willing to submit one. Although that may not even be able to change much. After all, the last DRN ended with 5 of the 7 editors that contributed voicing their support for something along the lines of version 2, yet a handful of editors singlehandedly warred the suggested solution to death. And here again after full two weeks of polling, a handful are bent on crippling the solution supported by the majority. So what if this trend continues, what then? How can it be resolved? EyeTruth (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, for now I will go along with something along the lines of option b. I already did lots of advertising for this in the past, others are encouraged to do some more. Let the poll run for a full five weeks which is till the end of the month. Whatever the result is, so be it and let everyone hold their peace. EyeTruth (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen. I propose that this be closed with the consensus of all. I for one, accept the expressed preferences of the community. However, if new and relevant RSS emerge in the future which have any impact on the above issue, I believe it is legitimate to revisit this. Regards. Irondome (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

German casualties in Soviet archives

The article notes that the Soviets seized German unit records at the end of the war and declined to confirm they had done so. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the archives, surely this information is now available? If so, this sentence should be amended to reflect this.204.116.217.18 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Records from the 9th Army conducting the northern assault were lost when the army was destroyed and the command elements captured during Operation Bagration. These are still not available for review, nor have they been used as source material as far as I am aware. Materials from the 4th Panzer Army are available through the US National Archives. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

German casualties report

Please see: ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html.

Total German casualties = Army Group centre + Army Group south. Yundra counted only one Army Group, but he always revert edit113.190.46.130 (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Total German losses:2 armies from group South plus 2 armies from group Center, not whole army groups! you even do not know what the German armies took part in the battle!Yura2404 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk_order_of_battle. 4 armies from group South plus 3 armies from group Center (not incluld Luftwaffe), and the other Army (which you didn't count) also joined in later phases (when Soviet counter-attack)113.190.46.130 (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

your link: 3 armies of army group center and two armies from army group south. their losses 198,000. and any other german armies was not in battle. And: you are blocked MiG29VN :-)Yura2404 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, you didn't count Army Group Reserve42.113.98.85 (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because losses of Army Group Reserve including at losses of German armies. Therefore there are no losses of Army Group Reserve in the German reports on this site:ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html. You can write something like: Soviet estimate German losses 500,000. These data I will not delete. That is, put two figures: According to German data 198000, according to Soviet data 500,000. Yura2404 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OK1.55.244.204 (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Problems

Some of the sources mentioned in the references aren't in the list of references. For example, reference 286 as of today (2013-12-08) to "Glantz 1991" or the references to "Zaloga 1989".

This is a general weakness in the ref list system, and Wikipedia needs to address it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.4.195.188 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Article length and scope

This issue has already been discussed at length and a consensus arrived at here. The article is about the Battle of Kursk, not the Soviet counteroffensives. Adding information in from those battles will continue to expand the size of the article. The goal was 60 to 100 kilobytes of readable text. The article now stands at about 120,000 bytes of readable text. I am going to revert the additional information away from the article. Perhaps you could clear that material out of the infobox for us. Also, please respond here for further discussion rather than reverting. You made a bold edit, I reverted it out of the article, now we are supposed to discuss it here before further reverting is to go on. That is the method preferred to avoid edit warring. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been working on Joachim Peiper recently, but, having observed previously these discussions, i wanted to express agreement with Gunbirddriver that this article is about the Battle of Kursk, not the Soviet counteroffensives. Furthermore, here it's agreed to focus on the German offensive, while the following Russian offensive was moved off to its own article and briefly summarized. MiG29VN, from a quick look at your talk page, I see that you've already established a history of disruptive editing and failure to respect the project norm that mediated content dispute resolution processes require thorough talk page discussion occur first - hence why GBD and I have both commented here. Your interest in contributing to the project is welcome, but collaboration and consensus are necessary for success. I think it would be a welcome gesture on your part to clear the material in question out of the infobox for us...Thanks. JDanek007^Talk 06:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Just want to clarify that I'm not accusing MiG29VN of being disruptive in the context of the edits that Gbdriver had to revert. Rather just noted that I saw he'd been blocked for such behavior recently, and so to avoid disrupting the effort here, discussing bold but ultimately misdirected edits here would be better than making them and then seeing them reverted. JDanek007^Talk 06:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)