Jump to content

Talk:Baltic offensive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Baltic Offensive)

Requested move

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

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

Complete list of articles (34) in mrg3105's proposal

  1. Baltic Offensive -> Baltic Strategic Offensive
  2. Baltic Strategic Defensive Operation -> Baltic Strategic Defensive
  3. Battle of West Ukraine (1944) -> Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive
  4. Belgrade Offensive -> Belgrade Strategic Offensive
  5. Budapest Offensive -> Budapest Strategic Offensive
  6. East Pomeranian Offensive -> East Pomeranian Strategic Offensive
  7. East Prussian Offensive -> East Prussian Strategic Offensive
  8. Jassy-Kishinev Operation -> Jassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive
  9. Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation -> Petsamo-Kirkenes Strategic Offensive
  10. Sandomierz–Silesian Offensive Operation -> Sandomierz–Silesian Offensive
  11. Vienna Offensive -> Vienna Strategic Offensive
  12. Vistula–Oder Offensive -> Vistula–Oder Strategic Offensive
  13. Soviet invasion of Manchuria -> Manchurian Strategic Offensive
  14. Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Strategic Offensive Operation -> Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Strategic Offensive
  15. Prague Offensive -> Prague Strategic Offensive
  16. Belostock Offensive Operation -> Belostock Offensive
  17. Bobruysk Offensive Operation -> Bobruysk Offensive
  18. Kaunas Offensive Operation -> Kaunas Offensive
  19. Kerch–Eltigen Operation -> Kerch-Eltingen Amphibious Offensive
  20. Lower Silesian Offensive Operation -> Lower Silesian Offensive
  21. Lublin–Brest Offensive Operation -> Lublin–Brest Offensive
  22. Minsk Offensive Operation -> Minsk Offensive
  23. Mogilev Offensive Operation -> Mogilev Offensive
  24. Nagykanizsa-Kermend Offensive Operation -> Nagykanizsa-Kermend Offensive
  25. Osovets Offensive Operation -> Osovets Offensive
  26. Ostrogozhsk-Rossosh Operation -> Ostrogozhsk-Rossosh Offensive
  27. Polotsk Offensive Operation -> Polotsk Offensive
  28. Shyaulyay Offensive Operation -> Shyaulyay Offensive
  29. Tallinn Offensive Operation -> Tallinn Offensive
  30. Toropets-Kholm Operation -> Toropets–Kholm Offensive
  31. Upper Silesian Offensive Operation -> Upper Silesian Offensive
  32. Vilnius Offensive Operation -> Vilnius Offensive
  33. Vitebsk–Orsha Offensive Operation -> Vitebsk–Orsha Offensive
  34. Zemland offensive operation -> Zemland Offensive

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

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

xyz Strategic Offensive

[edit]

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

Sorry, but I would appreciate if you clarify what it is that you oppose--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support using shorter titles, without the "strategic operation", per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you can not apply the "common name" convention to a subject that is not common in the fist place. Its counter-logical. For the rest see discussion in....
Precision guideline says (in a nutshell) "Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings.", and this would be the case here
I would suggest those expressing their opinions here put away their "I hate Soviet Union" flag, and approach this as Wikipedia editors--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We are required to follow the spirit of policy and guidelines rather than insisting they don't apply.
  2. There is nothing ambiguous about "XX Offensive" or "XX Operation".
--ROGER DAVIES talk 09:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Spirit of policy? Lets not get metaphysical ok. Hard enough in Wikipedia with the letters moving all the time as it is. I note the "spirit" is mentioned once, but left undefined as are many concepts in Wikipedia policies
  2. Well sure there is, all military operations are "operations", but not all operations are offensives.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Implying that everyone who opposes this slew of moves is somehow anti-soviet is a total failure to AGF. Some of these may indeed be correct moves but just checking a handful, I see we are talking about reducing terms that get sizable mention in things like Google Books. For example, there are 86 for Baltic Offensive while Baltic Strategic Offensive gets 6 and most of those acctually use Baltic Strategic Offensive Operation. I can sympathise with mrg in so far as he wants to make an encyclopedia that is as accurate as possible in every way. Unfortunatly I think changing the titles to these titles that are in the minority and are technically accurate acts as a barrier for the casual reader. It has been asserted on other pages that only people already versed in the eastern front will come to these pages, this I dsagree with, especially with the rise of history programming on free to air TV. We should always aim to make things easier for the ley reader, not the expert editor. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I would suggest those expressing their opinions here put away their "I hate Soviet Union" lag, and approach this as Wikipedia editors" - well, if this discussion is going to follow those kind of arguments... :( Mgr, you are already under an ArbCom restriction with regards to battleground creation and personal attacks. Please refactor your offensive remark and be more civil. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mrg3105, thankyou for collecting all the affected articles carefully. I have to say however that I agree with Narson, Piotrus and Roger Davies: my opinion is that all of the above articles should be at XX Operation or XX Offensive. 'XX Strategic Operation,' as well expressed by Roger Davies in the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Comment is needlessly complex, as well as the other four reasons that he posited. Buckshot06(prof) 18:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, it was a general statement, not an argument. However, I am honoured to know that my block record is important enough to have a place in your extensive files. Are you looking to block me on an incivility again?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Narson, it really depends how ALL articles of same nature are named.
Are they named because that is the name given to them at the time of the execution, and recorded by history?
or
The title describes the content, and corresponds to that used in sources on which the article is based?
or
Are they named because its the best name for them in the opinion of Wikipedia editors?
I don't see why Soviet names should be treated differently to any other country which has articles about military operations in Wikipedia. However, what I see is different rules being applied to the Soviet operations because Soviet command did not use a codename or a "battle" for every one of its operations as the Western Allies did (or nearly so).
In any case, look at the names of the operations. They start with geographic locations. There are three ways an article can be found in Wikipedia:
a) by Google search
b) by wikilinks in other articles
c) by direct (typed) search
A Google search is completely dependent on the willingness of the user to search. If they are interested in the subject, they are more than likely to use books published in the last 20 years. By and large these have been either by Glantz, or influenced by him since the mid-1980s. If the average English speaking user goes to a forum, they will be suggested Glantz in a list of very few authors considered authoritative on the subject of Soviet operations on the Eastern Front. Even if the user is searching for a specific name and gets it wrong, Google will come up with closest match, so where is the difficulty?
In the case of b), wikilinks, there is no way to make Dnepropetrovsk "intuitive" for an English speaker! So, the Wikipedia editors will just have to either learn how to copy and paste, ask for assistance from Russian-speaking editors and cooperate in interwiki projects and wikis, or not edit any articles that includes names they can't be bothered to spell. I am myself using the form used by Glantz which is also used by another researcher even if I disagree wit the transliteration because I can add alternative spelling redirects later. The point - having found an operation in a book, an average English reader should not have a problem with it in Wikipedia, and neither strategic nor offensive has anything to do with it
In the case of c), again, they will have had to find the geographical names somewhere outside of Wikipedia. Are they more likely to have access to books from the 1960s, or those from the 1990s to current published works? If the reader so much as Googles "Eastern Front" and "World War II", they are more than likely to come up with some titles by Glantz who uses the Soviet naming convention for the operations. However, after the first geographic location is typed into the Wikipedia search, the rest comes up, so the words "strategic offensive" need not even be typed in! The search feature is there to help intuitive searching! So why should the names of the operations be reduced?
So, again I ask, what is the problem?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group 1 moves

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal by Mrg3105: rename the following 12 articles to "XX Strategic Offensive"

Oppose: per policy. Plus, there is no consensus for this naming model. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to which of these you think applies in supporting your opposition--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers.
  • Titles should be brief without being ambiguous.
  • Titles should make linking to the article simple.
I keep repeating that naming convention requesting "common name" can not be logically applied to subjects that are not common by definition.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are alone in this view. There is nothing uncommon about military offensives. --ROGER DAVIES talk
Are you saying that I alone think that there is such a thing as a strategic offensive?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus, is how people discuss something, not how many votes you can gather to support your position. That much is very clear. I have not seen any sources provided by you to substantiate any other proposals, or any analysis of my proposal.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't need sources for this. WP:NAMING and WP:MILMOS apply. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to that which you think supports your opposition
  • An article should generally be placed at the most common name used to refer to the event
  • If there is no common name, the name should be a descriptive geographic term such as "battle of X" --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have been over this, and it seems to me you are simply picking parts of the policy you like out of context. Most of the names that begin the name of the operation in this case are uncommon. However, that is not even an issue. This is an attempt to create coherent and consistent naming across a range of articles for which a naming convention already exists and has been confirmed by an expert in the field. Would you like me to quote from Glantz about the difference between a strategic offensive and an offensive that's not. Nor is this a matter of "style". The names are based in historical record, and that is consistent with the article being on military history.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When Glantz wrote about Kharkov and Kursk, he called his books "Kharkov 1942" and "The Battle of Kursk". He probably thought that was enough detail for book titles and I think it's probably enough information for article titles. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you can say "To avoid confusion, and for consistent naming, per naming " for group four, and yet oppose here?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite different grounds. I'll explain in #Group 4 move. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for moves. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modified proposal: perhaps rename selected articles for consistency with "XX Offensive" model:

  1. Battle of West Ukraine (1944) to Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive
  2. Jassy-Kishinev Operation -> Jassy–Kishinev Offensive
  3. Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation -> Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive
  4. Battle of the Crimea (1944) -> Crimean Offensive
  5. Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Strategic Offensive Operation -> Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive
  6. Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation -> Lower Dnieper Offensive
Nos. 4–6 added to list 9 October 2008. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there consensus on the modified proposal? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see what consensus means--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll look it up again. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the modified proposal. Also, perhaps in it we could include renaming [[Battle of the Crimea (1944) to Crimean Offensive. Joe (Talk) 21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections – I don't know whether the others do – so I've added this as No. 4. Nos 5 & 6 are articles missed earlier in a general trawl. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why English “Lower Dnieper,” but mixed Russian–English “Dnepr–Carpathian?” Dnieper-Carpathian Offensive would use the common name and be consistent with the others (I don't see Dnepr-Karpaty Offensive, Beograd Offensive, Budapesht Offensive, or Battle of Krym). —Michael Z. 2008-10-09 15:52 z

Good point! I've amended it. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this amended proposal is sensible Knepflerle (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All articles in Modified proposal moved per consensus. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Group 2 moves

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal by Mrg3105: move articles named "XX Strategic Offensive" > "XX Offensive"

Comment: Uncontroversial; no objection. The new names conform fully with naming policy. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Group 3 moves

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal by Mrg3105
rename to conform with Soviet naming conventions:
Oppose
better ways to disambiguate exist.--ROGER DAVIES talk 06:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal creates inconsistencies in the range of article within the category--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a significant issue. It already contains much greater inconsistencies. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if it has other inconsistencies, the more the merrier?!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are we applying on Wikipedia Soviet naming conventions? --Eurocopter (talk) 11:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-proposal
To avoid confusion, and for consistent naming, per naming (op cit), I suggest:

Is there consensus on this? --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is discussion about sources; please cite sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested yesterday that offensive and operation might be ambiguous. These two are in close proximity so I've used dates, per WP:MILMOS to disambiguate them. As Offensive and Operation form parts of the original names, this isn't a radical proposal. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, only operation is ambiguous, offensive is not as it provides conceptual context. The dates are not required because there had never been another Baltic Defensive, so this is an unnecessary lengthening--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Roger Davies on this one. I would support 'Baltic Operation (1941)' and 'Baltic Offensive (1944)'. Buckshot06(prof) 19:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roger's proposal seems ok and should do. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Roger, Kirill and 'tigre. Don't forget hatnote disambigs between the articles too. Knepflerle (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved both of these as we seem to have consensus. I note, in astonishment, that of the six citations on Baltic Offensive (1944), four of them relate to the name. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Group 4 moves

[edit]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal by Mrg3105: rename

Comment: if consistency is the key here, then I suggest:

Thoughts, --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, I am not making assumptions, but do you understand the difference between a naval landing operation and an amphibious offensive? Please do not take this as an insult or incivility or something. Just asking--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. I have to say though that I'm not bothered whether this is moved or not. The existing name is fine by me. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that the Guadalcanal amphibious assault was an offensive by one US Marine division reinforces just like in this operation? p.6, Storm Landings by Joseph H. Alexander, Naval Institute Press. Moonzund Landing Operation was a mere desant coordinated by a Crops, but this was 4th Ukrainian Front employed the 18th and 56th Armies, the Black Sea Fleet, and the Azov Flotilla. To me that sounds not far off from the Normandy landing and certainly on par with the levels of Allied invasion of Sicily which funnily enough is called a major World War II campaign. In view of this I seem to be quite on the mark with Kerch-Eltingen Amphibious Offensive--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, same with Roger. We have no need for additional titles in capitals. Current one is just fine. Buckshot06(prof) 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Useless proposal, no need to change anything in current title in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for moves. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German losses

[edit]

Please dont revert my sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) By today, there are accounts for almost every campaign in World War II. This one is not an exception. Just try to order "Saaremaa 1944" by Mart Laar and you'll get an overview of all available accounts there are.
2) Yes, but as you provide only this account, you leave an expression that this is the only reliable one, while it is neither the only one nor even reliable for that matter.
3) Enemies, especially when they are totalitarian states, tend to exaggerate their opponent's losses for propaganda reasons. You would not push German accounts for Soviet losses, would you? Why are you doing the opposite then?
4) See 1)
5) Once again, it is correct to trust prisoners data from the party taking them. It is common practice among the Miliary History workgroup not to use a totalitarian propaganda service's data for their enemy's losses. See this post for instance.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Reoccupation of Baltic states

[edit]

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

Care to cite who exactly deems the Estonian International Commission for Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity as spreading propaganda? Or is it just your own research?
After the Soviet incorporation, the Baltic governments did not acquire significant forces or power to be regarded as allies of any side. Officially, they were neutral, as declared by the Estonian government and proven by the fact that the small troops loyal to the government fought botht the German and the Soviet troops during the Tallinn Offensive. The Latvian and Lithuanian governments did not even exist during the Baltic Offensive, so I am not sure what you are talking about. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sick

[edit]

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baltic_offensive&oldid=1205677885"