Talk:Battle of Kursk

Suggested solution to the edit war around use of the term "blitzkrieg"

I'm posting this with my non-involved administrator hat on. Per WP:NPOV there's a need to acknowledge significant differences of opinion among experts on topics in the relevant article. That appears to be the case here in relation to whether the German offensive was intended as a "blitzkrieg" or whether a different approach was intended. I would suggest adding a paragraph which explicitly acknowledges this. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following wording:

Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation. X, Y, and Z argue that the Germans hoped to punch through the Soviet defences using blitzkrieg tactics. However, A, B and C state that the German goals were tactical in nature, and were focused mainly on attrition. B and C explicitly state that the operation was not intended as a blitzkrieg.

Attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible, and I'm prepared to impose blocks if the current dispute continues. I'd strongly encourage a discussion of consensus wording here before it's added to the article, though I think that this process would be aided if both the involved editors took a voluntary break from the dispute over the weekend and resumed the discussion with cooler heads. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I thought it would be better if we both took voluntary break from the dispute over the weekend to cool our heads, but Gunbirddriver seems to be overflowing with energy and is already working on it. EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Gunbirddriver. I've fixed the red "cite error" you left all over the place. I had to revert to the last error-free version and work from there. Below is what I modified in the content.EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

:The main section reads: The operation, according to some historians[j], envisioned a blitzkrieg...

Then note [j] reads: Some commentators, including the participants of Operation Citadel, make no mention of blitzkrieg nor do they characterize it as such. The most striking commentary was from Heinz Guderian, the most prominent of Germany's "tank men", who strongly opposed the operation on the grounds that it violated his principles on the use of armour, although he makes no mention of blitzkrieg (Guderian 1938, pp. 307-308). He predicted the offensive could only achieve a limited result, at a cost too great to justify the effort, saying "The great commitment would certainly not bring equivalent gains" (Guderian 1952, p. 308). He was proved to be correct. However, some military historians consider Operation Citadel, or at least the southern pincer, as envisioning a blitzkrieg attack. Some of the historians that consider it as such include: Lloyd Clark (Clark 2012, p. 187), Roger Moorhouse (Moorhouse 2011, p. 342), Mary Kathryn Barbier (Barbier 2002, p. 10), David Glantz (Glantz 1986, p. 24) (Glantz & House 2004, p. 63, 78, 149, 269, 272, 280), Jonathan House (Glantz & House 2004, p. 63, 78, 149, 269, 272, 280), Hedley Paul Willmott (Willmott 1990, p. 300), Oscar Pinkus (Pinkus 2005, p. 35), etc. Zetterling & Frankson specifically considered only the southern pincer as a blitzkrieg attack (Zetterling & Frankson 2000, p. 137, it describes the German attack in the southern side as a "classical blitzkrieg attack.")

I really think that first sentence may need some citations to back it up or may need to be further reworded. EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• See the more balanced version in the "new proposal" below. EyeTruth (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem discussing the controversy in the article. The question is how should the controversy be worded, which I am unsure if EyeTruth and myself could come to an agreement on, and should the discussion be placed in the body of the article, which would disrupt the narrative flow, or in a notation of some sort. Here would be my suggestion for a notation presentation:

Some historians, including Clark, Glantz and H.P. Willmott, describe the planning of Operation Citadel to be akin to a blitzkrieg style of attack. Others consider only the southern attack to be a blitzkrieg style attack. However most commentators, including participants who wrote about the battle after the war, do not characterize the planning or execution of the attack as a blitzkrieg style attack. These include Theodor Busse, Erhard Raus, Friedrich Fangohr, Peter von der Groeben, Friedrich Wilhelm von Mellenthin, Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein. Said von Mellenthin "The German command was committing exactly the same error as in the previouos year. Then we attacked the city of Stalingrad, now we were to attack the fortress of Kursk. In both cases the German Army threw away all its advantages in mobile tactics, and met the Russians on ground of their own chosing." In addition, a great number of military historians do not view the battle as a blitzkrieg, including, but not limited, to Healy, Nipe, Newton, Brand and Kasdorf. Of them all, the most striking commentary came from Heinz Guderian, the most prominent of Germany's "tank men", who strongly opposed the operation on the grounds that it violated his principles for the use of armour. Guderian predicted the offensive could only achieve a limited result, at a cost too great to justify the effort, saying "The great commitment would certainly not bring equivalent gains." The course of events proved him to be correct.

 Some issues with the proposed excerpt above are mentioned below
Weasel words: "However most commentators..."
Original synthesis: "do not characterize the planning or execution of the attack as a blitzkrieg style attack." Binksternet and I already pointed out that interpreting the meaning of the silence of several sources should be left to the reader. Any such interpretation by editors is tantamount to original synthesis, irrespective of how likely correct it may be. EyeTruth (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the section where this is mentioned is titled German plans and preparation, I would prefer to leave the description of the offensive and its goals as the Germans would have described them, and would leave out after the fact descriptions which the participants would not have agreed with. That would be my preference, anyway. I would be interested to hear again from Binksternet and Sturmvogel 66. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

*Comment - Hallo Gunbirddriver! I simply wanted to say that it actually resonates with me, what you've said about wanting to leave out of the subsection on German plans and preparation any after-the-fact descriptions, verbiage or even single-word terms that the participants on the German side would not have agreed with. And yet as an experienced reader with strong interest in WW2 history, though no specific, detailed knowledge of Citadel beyond the basic framework and most salient details, ironically enough the one spot in the layout and structure of the article where I personally would find any reference to "blitzkrieg" to be useful would be at the point at which it's now considered for inclusion (discussed below). I think this must be b/c it influences how I read the following sections in the article, and even though I still finish reading thinking that Citadel was not blitzkrieg, having the debate brought to my attention early on in the article allows me to factor that into how I read the meat of the text. Anyway, just wanted to share that feedback. I hope that a consensus can be reached and this issue put to bed in a way that all the involved-editors can accept, even if - in compromising - they're not thrilled. Azx2 05:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(I'm calling on those that have previously contributed to this discussion to kindly spare some time and drop in their thoughts on the "new proposal" outlined below. Hello: User:Binksternet, User:Someone not using his real name, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Azx2, User:Irondome, User:Hasteur). EyeTruth (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

 New proposal

I have done what I believe is a balanced solution. For me, this is no longer about who is wrong or who is right. Hence, I heeded the advice of WP:NPOV policy and gave both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others (including many German participants) simply make no mention of the term in their description. It is simple with no extra interpretation for either side of the argument. It is best to avoid original synthesis and let readers make up their own mind. Also I kept it as brief as possible so as not to disrupt the flow of the text CHECK IT OUT.

But Gunbirddriver disagrees with it. He still believes that presenting one point of view in the main content of the article is feasible. However, we have both been advised by an admin (Nick-D) that "attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible" and he suggested adding a paragraph which explicitly acknowledges the different views (I used only a fraction of a paragraph). Gunbirddriver also argued that it is our place to interpret the meaning of the silence of several sources that do not mention the term. He explained that "their silence speaks volumes". I asked him "who will decide what 'volumes' their silence speak?" (See section Further discussion of blitzkrieg for the full statements). HERE is the version Gunbirddriver prefers. And THIS is the difference between the two versions being compared. Well, he was blocked for 24 hours after reverting it without stating a justifying cause. Gunirddriver has his good reasons for his position but I've come to realize that working towards a solution that satisfies the core Wikipedia policies, and not our personal reasons, is the only way forward. EyeTruth (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's Operational Order No. 6, issued 15 April, called for the Kursk offensive operation to begin on 3 May or shortly thereafter. Kurt Zeitzler, the OKH Chief of Staff, provided the logistical planning for the operation. Zeitzler was a resourceful organizer of strategic moves, and had an exceptional capacity to solve movement problems. For the plan to succeed it was deemed essential to attack before the Soviets had a chance to prepare extensive defenses or launch an offensive of their own. 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. Citadel envisioned 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. Kluge's Army Group Centre was to provide General Walter Model's 9th Army to form the northern pincer and cut down through the northern face of the salient, driving to a location to the hills east of Kursk, securing the rail line from Soviet attack.Manstein's Army Group South would commit the 4th Panzer Army under Hermann Hoth and Army Detachment Kempf under Werner Kempf to penetrate the southern face of the salient, driving northwards to meet 9th Army upon the heights east of Kursk. Mainstein's main attack was to be delivered by Hoth's 4th Panzer Army, spearheaded by the II SS Panzer Corps, commanded by Paul Hausser. Driving north to its left was the XLVIII Panzer Corps, commanded by Otto von Knobelsdorff. The right flank of the drive was to be covered by Army Detachment "Kempf", under the command of Werner Kempf. The western face of the salient was to be controlled by the 2nd Army, under the command of Walter Weiss.

*Suggestion - Hi guys. EyeTruth asked me if I could offer any feedback or suggestion on how you can move forward. While I can't speak for how much weight should be accorded to each source that contends there was a blitzkrieg aspect to Zitadelle, given that such sources exist, it doesn't seem viable to me now to reject outright the inclusion of the term, but w/ clear caveat that it's not at all universally-accepted. I've read Nick-D's comments and it seems clear that he believes that both Blitzkrieg and No Blitzkrieg perspectives should appear (quote: "Attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible"). I've not been in contact with Gunbirddriver, so I'm not aware if he agrees w/ Nick-D or not, but from collaborating w/ him before I know he's practical, not just passionate. So in light of what Nick-D suggested, and what appeared in one of the diffs mentioning Blitzkrieg, I slightly modified the wording that included the Blitzkrieg/No-Blitzkrieg notes, and offer it below as a Suggested Edit to allow you to move on from this:

I included the word "contemporary" to describe the historians who contend that the operation envisioned a blitzkrieg (which would include your 1986 source), to make clear for the reader that there is a difference in perspective b/w those analyzing the operation in present day and men like Guderian and von Manstein who were directly involved in the war, making the history that was later recorded, analyzed and interpreted (although use of "contemporary" implies no qualitative deficiency).

I really hope this is helpful to you and that you all can move forward with it. Cheers! Azx2 21:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the addition of "contemporary" is very good. I also added that "some other military historians" for those that make no mention of the term. EyeTruth (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we discussing here or on the talk page. This may become an long thread. Should there not be a new thread Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If it gets too big, it can be moved. EyeTruth (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

*Comment - Agreed that if this becomes substantial discussion it can be carved out into another separate sub-section of the talk page under a top-level header. EyeTruth, I saw your addition to the text of "some other military historians" and think it a compliment to "contemporary" w/r/t readability and clarity. And for the benefit of those trying to judge the suggested-edit, to make the text in question more visible w/in the complete paragraph I posted, I changed the color of the suggested-addition to green. Also, to clarify, the notes I included in the text I simply copied from one of the diffs (the Blitzkrieg/No Blitzkrieg notes). Now I realize there might be multiple versions of those in various diffs, but I don't take a position on them and confine my feedback to potential edit of the main text to address the inclusion of "blitzkrieg" - not how it's explained in detail in the (foot)notes. Cheers. Azx2 04:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I think Gunbirddriver is blocked right now, but hopefully that will expire shortly and he can share his response to the suggested resolution w/r/t inclusion of the text we're discussing (discussing while keeping in mind that Nick-D has clarified that "Attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible"). Azx2 04:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I should note that I didn't intend that comment to be binding (which isn't within the powers of admins anyway) - it was my reading of the arguments and sources put forward to that time, and checking my copy of Glantz and House's book on the battle (one of the "pro-Blitzkrieg" works mentioned). If consensus here decides otherwise, that's what should go in the article :) Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This series of edits by EyeTruth looks like a good solution to the problem of how to present the various opinions. I think this is better than the synthesis of trying to form a conclusion taken from various authors' silence on the issue of Kursk-as-blitzkrieg. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will like to add that "User:Someone not using his real name" stated on his talkpage that he has nothing more to add besides what he already said in the DRN case. That still leaves it at 7 editors that have voiced their support for a due weight to be given to each side of the argument. EyeTruth (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So what will happen going forward, once this article is unprotected and opened for editing, EyeTruth? Will it be agreed that a consensus has been reached (if not universal agreement) and some form of the sentence (and notes) discussed above added to the article? Or will it stay just on the talk page for a while still? Also, apologies to Nick-D for misinterpreting his statement as a binding directive. Azx2 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting on Gunbirddriver. He is still the only editor involved that has flat-out rejected the suggested solution (and maybe also User:Hasteur and User:Irondome). Although, some editors only reluctantly agreed to the solution. Anyways, it would be preferable if no opinion is left behind. So yeah, still waiting on Gunbirddriver to chip in his opinion, unless he has decided to stay silent. EyeTruth (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. This solution is actually not recent. It was proposed during the DRN. Eventually five of the seven editors involved came to support it, although one of the five only reluctantly supported it (Sturmvogel 66). One of the two against it was a primary moderator of the case, that is Hasteur, and the other was Gunbirddriver. The DRN ended up as "unresolved" since four editors disagreed with Hasteur's verdict. The suggested solution could not be effected since Gunbirddriver rejected it. EyeTruth (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Curious that you claim I am silent, when you are editing your previous comments after I have made a reply. A sort of studied thickness. Let me place my comment here directly below your most recent comment so that you cannot miss it. Your suggestion is poor because it places the term Blitzkrieg right into the body of the article, as though this were explanatory and informative. It is neither. As pointed out by a number of editors well experienced in military history, the term is vague and has multiple meanings. Among those who have commented on the vagueness and common misunderstanding of the term is the editor EyeTruth, convincingly making the case against his own position. What we want in the article is to describe the events in a manner that conveys what occured accurately, succinctly and unambiguously. EyeTruth has yet to answer my query as to why he believes it is so necessary to include the term at all, as what the German plans were can be more clearly described by leaving the term out.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in Wikipedia to present my own view. I'm here to present notable views of credible sources. I'm anal about sources, simple as that. I know you find it hard to understand such mentality. But please don't be baffled that I've also made personal arguments against the views of other secondary sources that I've presented in Wikipedia. EyeTruth (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As to the opinion of other editors, seven have come out here on this talk page to say the article is better with the term left out of the main body. Those editors are Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus, Binksternet, Azx2, Irondome and myself. Your treatement of these editors has been to brush them aside, and you refuse to recognize the validity of what they are saying. Several have been willing to accept a compromise position with some of your wording, but these are consessions, not frank support. Your brow beating and inappropriate responses are essentially bullying the other editors. This is poor behavior. No editor has argued for specific inclusion of the term, other than yourself. Administrator Nick-D's proposed wording started out "Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation..." That wording would be acceptable to me. It places the disagreement in front of the reader prior to introducing the term. Your "compromise solution" places the term in the body of the article and requires the reader to find a footnote to understand why the term might be misplaced. With your version the reader is left in the dark. That is not preferred.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a war. Stop seeing it as one. Maybe you haven't noticed but there are three sides to this dispute. There are those who support EXCLUSION, those who support INCLUSION, and those who support DUE WEIGHT to be given to both sides of the argument. Gunbirddriver, you are currently the only editor that is NOT in the "due weight" category. Every other editor at some point have voiced their support for a due weight. BTW, stop cherry picking statements from Nick-D's proposal made above. You still don't have any sources to be able to write the third sentence in Nick-D's proposal. And the first sentence of the proposal, which you cherry picked, explicitly builds on the third. BTW, having learned from experience, I will not waste any effort feeding your baseless accusations of misconduct with any comments. EyeTruth (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• I completely agree with the suggested solution. And good job EyeTruth! Caden ^cool 03:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Caden :D EyeTruth (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Azx2, you once mentioned that you didn't know what the notes had. I've put them up, (open the collapsible). EyeTruth (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for arranging a revised layout of the information, so that the notes are more clearly visible here in this discussion, EyeTruth. Ironically, I think that your doing so has helped me better understand Gunbirddriver's position, as reflected in his comments concerning the explicit articulation of historical disagreement, and how, in the structure of Nick-D's originally-proposed text, the disagreement was noted before the introduction of the subject of the disagreement (blitzkrieg). I don't think User:Gunbirddriver is being fastidious in continuing to express discontent, and I understand the importance of not overlooking ostensibly-small details that could have a proportionally-greater influence on the reader's perception of the characterization of the operation...

As GBD noted, from the outset I made clear that I am not pro-Blitzkrieg, and I don't think including the term in the main body is explanatory or informative as much as it is trivial, but, at the same time, I've been unwilling to take a hard-line position and oppose some mention of the fact that there is a contemporary historical disagreement...hence my acceptance of a compromise solution that involves a combination of main-body text and Notes. In short, I didn't think it worth fighting over.

That said, I have a question, EyeTruth: User:Gunbirddriver states, "No editor has argued for specific inclusion of the term, other than yourself." <<< is that true? Azx2 20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hehehehe, no, that is not true. I will present everything to you in the original context and where you can find and confirm them for yourself, with no bs. You're aware that Gunbirddriver still insists that Binkersternet is against the inclusion, even though it is so evidently clear that he is not. In fact, see the DRN discussion for yourself. Well, initially Binkersternet was against my position (See the talkpage section) because he assumed I was saying that Citadel was a classic example of blitzkrieg, which is not what I was saying (See Binksternet's opening comment DRN). Binksternet later explained his position and offered support for inclusion (See the DRN discussion). 7 editors made relevant contributions in the DRN discussion, and 4 of them explicitly supported inclusion, but the primary DRN volunteer was against it; as such, the discussion bugged down. Also it was stated and agreed upon early in the DRN discussion by two DRN volunteers that a simple majority alone would not be enough to resolve the dispute (See the DRN discussion). After the DRN, this is what Sturmvogel said: "While I don't agree that it was a blitzkrieg in any way, the consensus, such as it was with the editors who did comment, would seem to be to call it a failed blitzkrieg. But I'd suggest adding in a note that many historians do not agree with that assessment and fail to characterize it as such." (in this talk page). In the DRN try and see if you can identify the only editor's opening comment that refused to recognize the dispute as a content-dispute (See DRN opening comments). DRN was essentially crap to that editor (my own assessment). Azx2 frankly, you can just ignore my words and just check out the WP pages cited in the brackets and you will have your answer. Trivia: Do you know that Gunbirddriver was able to get me blocked by reporting an extremely warped account of this dispute? Oh well, the admin later pointed out that he didn't dig in deep and apologized for the mistake (See my block log). His proficiency at miscoloring a situation scares me. EyeTruth (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That no other editors are explicitly advocating for the inclusion of the term "blitzkrieg" in the main body of the article text? Are the other editors who will tolerate a main-body mention of blitzkrieg just doing so out of a desire to compromise and avoid conflict (noble aims, mind you)? Because if that's the case (although we should be very clear and explicit here in acknowledging each editor's position), and Eyetruth is the only editor who wants the term mentioned in the main body of the article, then perhaps the compromise is more his to make and the reference to blitzkrieg should be in the note, and not inline (unless Nick-D's "disagreement"-text was approved). All along I've been operating under the belief that there was an already-established consensus b/w multiple editors who wanted the term included in the article in-line (as opposed to just wanting to resolve the editing conflict b/w ET and GBD), but it sounds like that might not be correct? Would someone clarify this for me, please? Thanks. Azx2 20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, well I guess I was a bit late in asking this and polling has already begun for which blitzkrieg solution to implement. I'll review those now and note my choice w/ any feedback, too. Cheers. Azx2 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2013

The term Rasputitsa is not well known, even amongst amateur world war 2 historians, can we please link it to the wikipedia entry to save people from having to look it up manually? Oneliketadow (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: The first use of the word is in the sentence "Operations ceased by the end of March due to the onset of the spring rasputitsa and the exhaustion of the Wehrmacht." where it is already linked. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Vote here to establish a blitzkrieg consensus

If we are to take a vote, we should leave the voting open at least until September 7th. There is no rush to reach a conclusion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This drama have been dragged out way too long. It should have ended many weeks ago. 3rd September was Irondome's original suggestion. I can manage to support that date. One week is more than enough. EyeTruth (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Inserting the term blitzkrieg into the article to describe the German plan is not moving the article forward. The change is opposed with good reason.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

People, I am good with the 7th if GBD percieves a time issue. Another 96 hours wont kill us. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See the section below for the poll. (This section was collapsed on Irondome's approval)

I would suggest that we begin to get final votes with a summary of reasons in from interested editors. Ther should be NO rebuttals or side comments. Only condensed summaries to support individual voting decisions. We have all read the highly detailed and lengthy arguments above, so will not attempt to recaptulate the main arguments. I believe the arguments are now complete and no new material of substance can be submitted meaningfully from mainstream RS. To me, the options appear to be; Leave a mention of blitzkrieg in mainspace without qualifying notes attached. Just one. mention blitzkrieg once in mainspace with qualifying notes attached. Avoid use of blitzkrieg in mainspace entirely. I suggest we leave the voting space open for 7 days, to close on 3rd Sept, 04.32 London time. Votes and arguments below. A majority consensus shall be our final word on this. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC) This is actually resetting all progress made so far back to scratch. Here is the reason: We are currently working on #2, yet moving on from there to a final solution has currently consumed well over 50 KB of text. What you are doing above was the state of affairs some weeks ago during the DRN. You are resetting the dispute back to pre-DRN. The DRN was essentially an attempt to decided between #1 and #3, but instead other editors suggested #2, as it was pointed out that #1 and #3 would mean working outside the Wikipedia core content policies. So if we assume this vote decides on #2 (which will be identical to the DRN), then the endless discussion done above will start all over again. I'm in support of voting but the above voting-options are rewinding the whole drama to several weeks ago (I took the leisure to number them) EyeTruth (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Appreciate that. Ta Irondome (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC) BTW, the wording of the poll already started out with massive bias against inclusion. Wow... Ignore. It got fixed.EyeTruth (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC) There is no "progress", or we would not be here. I am not debating anything further in this space, as per above. It would be good if all eds involved in the previous DRN were informed. Let us just have a definitive consensus now. Would you care to vote? Irondome (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Given that the discussion above would be rather daunting to many editors (in terms of length and occasional hostility) a simpler approach such as this may be helpful. Another, and perhaps better, approach would be for editors to propose concrete text (with supporting references) for other editors to consider and modify - there's been some this this above, but the discussion has tended to get bogged down in who-said-what type discussions. Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Nick-D, the better approach you are suggesting is exactly what is going on in the section "Suggested solution to the edit war around use of the term blitzkrieg". The other sections are pretty much drama festival. I'm in SUPPORT of voting but the above voting-options are rewinding the whole drama to several weeks ago. A poll that will move things forward will be far more profitable. EyeTruth (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC) That discussion has unfortunately become bogged since last week. It might be best to gauge if there consensus for the wording suggested by Azx2 on 20 August. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Ok, I will get a voting on that. That is actually what I was talking about. A voting on the two current "wordings" being suggested would bring the dispute closer to resolution. (late signature) EyeTruth (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I'm all for voting but I disagree with the above voting options made by Irondome because it makes no sense to me. I think EyeTruth's idea is far better. Let's stick with the suggested solution to this edit war surrrounding use of the word blitzkrieg. Furthermore I believe we should mention blitzkrieg more than once in mainspace with qualifying notes attached. Caden cool 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC) It is good to see that you have been galvanised into taking some concrete action. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for giving me a little push in the right direction. EyeTruth (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC) No problems EyeTruth. Its good to see :). My work here is done. To the batcave! Irondome (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Section will be collapsed to keep editors from getting confused over which vote is which. This action has been approved by Irondome [1]. EyeTruth (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

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)