Jump to content

Talk:Battle of the Dnieper/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hitler's Motives

Quoted: Mid-August, Hitler understood that the Soviet offensive could not be contained - at least, not until some internal disagreement would break up among the Allies. Considering all this, he decided to buy time by constructing a series of fortifications to slow down the Red Army and demanded the Wermacht to defend its positions on the Dnieper at all costs

This gives Hitler a reasonable amount of credit as a strategist. Given only the bare facts (I've not studied this), it seems reasonable to suggest that Hitler was merely trying to hold onto conquered territory at all costs (he had refused to allow retreats on several other occasions). Does the scholarship suggest otherwise? Won't change till someone knowledgeable rings in.Skanar

Bad math?

Infobox says 1.2 million soviet casualties and a high estimate of 1.5 million axis casualties. yet the article says there were more than 3 million casualties on both sides? Borisblue 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Because somebody else edited it. I don't sleep enough at the moment <_< -- Grafikm_fr 15:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

coriolis force myth

It is claimed that the right bank of the Dnieper is higher due to the coriolis force. This is untrue. (e.g. compare to a river near you). Sure, the right bank of the Dnieper is generally higher because it tends to curve to the right. However, this curving is caused by local geology and most certainly not by the Coriolis force. This reminds me of the common coriolis force myth that water draining from a sink spirals differently in the northern and southernm hemisphere. Come on. Try it with different tap positions, instead. Deuar 13:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Don has a right bank steeper than the left and it curves the other way (look at a map). The Volga has (as in Volgograd ). The Dnieper has. The Danube has (as in Budapest). Siberian rivers like Ob' and Ienissei too. It's all local features? It's just because the river next to you is small. This being said, the thing of sink spirals is fake, I agree. -- Grafikm_fr 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, finally found the name of the law, it's called Baer-Babinet' Law (some more info here) -- Grafikm_fr 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at a map, and the Don actually has a very similar shape to the Dnieper (curves the same way), remarkably so, actually. Were you thinking about a particular small part of it that curves the other way? The particular river I was thinking about is the Vistula. I think this is a good example because 1) it is also on the eastern European plain 2) it is also a large river (~1000 km long and wide), and 3) it has an upper part which curves to the left (with higher banks on the left), and a lower part which largely curves to the right (with higher banks on the right). The obvious explanation for the height of banks is that the river's flow tends to erode the inside of curves. This is an almost completely universal feature of riverbanks both on large and small scales. It is also responsible for meanders. I would think that this effect is many orders of magnitude stronger than the coriolis force. On small scales, rivers erode the outside of curves because the water flows faster on the ouside of a curve (check out a meandering river near you), but on large scales, say a hunderd km, the valley tends to go where the underlying soil or rock is softest.
OOps! just fixing a silly error - steep banks are on the outside of a curve. Doesn't change the argument that the coriolis force is too weak compared to other effects, though.Deuar 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I had a look at that reference at www.sentex.net, but it's not very trustworthy to say the least. For one it seems to claim that the Great Lakes and other lakes on the Canadian shield were formed by sea currents. What a load of rubbish! The surface of that whole region is known to have been scoured by glacial movements during the last (and earlier) ice ages, which is what caused the depressions that became lakes. For another, it is a creationist website, so you can expect a whole pile of crazy crank theories when it comes to geology, because their underlying agenda is to actually discredit geology so they can claim that the world was recently created in 6 days by a biblical God. Excuse me while I nauseate ;-p
In any case, it claims that river valleys were eroded by ocean currents caused by the uplift of land, and that these currents were deflected by the coriolis force causing e.g. south flowing rivers to curve west. Well ok the Dnieper and Don do, but what about all the rest? look at an atlas! The Volga doesn't do it, the Danube doesn't do it, the Dniester doesn't do it, ... Also, how fast would this land have to rise up to make currents that can sculpt a river valley? All out of the sea in a day, or a week. Sounds like a 6 day creation story again. That just doesn't happen. While it would be cool if riverbanks were sculpted by the coriolis force, it's just not plausible (the coriolis force is too weak compared to normal erosion), and it's not seen in practice.
I agree that the rivers you mentioned appear to show an interesting trend, but I just don't think its the coriolis force. How long is the part of the Ob and Ienissei that has a steeper right bank? Also - sure, the Danube in Budapest has a steep right bank - but that's because there is a mountain range there on the right bank! This is a completely different situation to the Dnieper. Deuar 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to find a reasonable explaination for the bluffs, or perhaps just leave out an explaination for their existance. I will try to research this a bit, but I am also skeptical that Coriolis could account for it, it's just too minor a force compared to the normal erosion and deposition caused by river meander. MarcusGraly 19:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What causes river bluffs is diffrences in the erodability of deposits, Much of Ukraine is Loess, which is a wind blown very soft fertile soil, (which is why Ukraine historically was the Bread Basket of Russia). I imagine the Dnieper bluffs are some harder formation possibly Sandstone, or limestone, I'm not sure, but as the river cut through the sorfter loess, leaving the harder bluffs exposed. This is how river bluffs are formed. see [1] for example. For now, I am removing the coriolis link. If someone wants to reaserch fmore completely the geological history of the Dneiper Bluffs, that could be added to the article. MarcusGraly 19:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
More more thing, I know this is Military History and not Geology, but simply erosion and deposition is not going to cause bluffs by itself, it will cause meander bends and oxbow lakes ad the like, but you need more, (like the stronger rocks I mentioned,) to create bluffs. I'm not sure if there are true bluffs on the Dneiper or just a steeper bank. If it's just a steeper bank, then that could be the rsult of the curvature of the river. MarcusGraly 19:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I found a different link: here (part named "Baer's law (1860)")
Geology has change a lot since 1860. I'm not saying Baer is wrong, I would just like a more modern source confirming this before we put it back in the article. My brother's a Geologist, I'll ask him about it. MarcusGraly 20:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
see this artice for one:[[2]] MarcusGraly 20:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberate vs. Take

"Liberate" is loaded for sure, but so is "take." Let's find a neutral word that is accurate (I don't know enough about this to do it myself...). Perhaps "advanced to" or "moved" to the other side of the river. How about "Kiev Campaign"? Or "Battle for Kiev"? NPOV, please. PatrickFisher 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Took up position" on the far side of the river? PatrickFisher 11:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with "liberate"? A country liberates its own territory. We are not talking about Poland or Romania here, for instance, where this word could be discussed because of its political implications. Kiev was part of Soviet Union in 1941. -- Grafikm_fr 15:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, ironically I think 'liberate' may be the least POV term to use. We would not hesitate to write that French forces helped to 'liberate' Paris in Aug 1944. If the Germans were the agressor (and hopefully we can all agree on that) then 'liberate' seems to be a reasonable term. If the real issue here is the nature of the Soviet regime, let's be honest about that. It's a POV. DMorpheus 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"Liberation" is definitely a term from the Soviet propaganda.
The Soviet occupation was as bad for the Ukrainian people as the Nazi one. The "liberation" resulted in one more famine in 1946.
Please follow the NPOV policy and use neutral terms.
What is wrong with the word "take"? The opposite POV word would be "occupation". "Take" or "retake" is neutral and reflect merely a fact.--AndriyK 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Whether you want it or not (and as I can see, you don't) Ukraine was part of USSR in 1941 when Germany invaded it. When a country invades another, it is occupation, when you get your territories back, it is liberation. One uses liberation for Paris in Aug '44, why not for Kiev? -- Grafikm_fr 16:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Ukraine was under Soviet occupation before 1941 does not mean that it was liberated in 1944. This was reoccupation if you want to be precise. But I prefer to use neutral terms.
There is a crucial difference between Kiev and Paris. Nobody would object that Paris is a French city. Soon after the Nazis were pushed away, French Government took the control over the city and, the most important, people of Paris and of whole France had soon an opportunity to elect their government.
In contrast, Ukrainian city Kiev was controlled by the Soviet (in effect Russian) government untill 1991. The first free presidential elections took place in the same year.
There is no reason to speak about liberation of Kiev 1944. This was definitely a reoccupation.--AndriyK 17:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
1) What you say here is 10000 times more POV than the term you suggest to suppress. And as I can see from your talk page, it is not the only article...
2) Before 1917, Ukrain was part of the Russian Empire. It was occupation too?
3) "Occupation" is even more POV than liberation. If you suggest a really NPOV term such as "took control of" or something like that, fine. If not and if you're just making pro-Ukrainian propaganda, then no. -- Grafikm_fr 17:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


1) We discuss here the article Battle of the Lower Dnieper, not my talk page. This is not the only article because there are too many Russian/Soviet POV-pushers at this wiki.
2) Yes, it was an occupation too.
3)I do not propose to use "occupation" in the article. Some people consider this as occupation some - as liberation. There may be different POVs. But the WP articles should stick at NEUTRAL POV. Neither "occupation" nor "liberation" is appropriate in this case.
I agree with your suggestion to use "take (or retake) control of".
Don't you object if I correct the text according to your suggestion?--AndriyK 17:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay for "retake control of" or something in that tune. You can change the page if you want. -- Grafikm_fr 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
All victors use the term liberated when you retake something that has belonged to you. And this is wrong " occupation was as bad for the Ukrainian people as the Nazi one" that is wrong. First there were no extermination camps, and the land had been boomed to piceses, the nazies during their occupation took all the food from the soviets and left them with nothing. You cant regrow crops when you have nothing to seed and the land has been destroyed.(Deng 19:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC))
We have stick at neutral POV not at POV of the Soviets (victors).
The Nazi occupation was bad indeed, but the Soviet one was not better. There was no famine during the Nazi occupation, they did take the food but not not "all the food"/ I do not know what sources you use.--AndriyK 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


The term "liberation" is used in the Western literature to describe the Red Army advances not just in Ukraine, but even in Poland. And no one is talking about Lviv liberation in connection of '39 events. That was no a liberation in any way. '44-'45 events is a different story. I am still waiting for AndriyK doing the first non-revert edit for weeks or so. Probably, I am out of luck. --Irpen 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all western authors stick at neutral POV as wikipedians should.--AndriyK 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your neutrallity has become legendary, AndriyK. --Irpen 19:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is clear where you stand when you say "The Nazi occupation was bad indeed, but the Soviet one was not better" because you are dead wrong and that remark shows that you do not know what happened during the Soviet time the population of Ukraine didnt fall but I did fall during the Nazi occupation. And the Soviets only took back what belong to them. If you say "The Nazi occupation was bad indeed, but the Soviet one was not better" then it is clear that you dont know what you are talking about. (Deng 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC))
I perfectly khow what I am talking about, in contrast to you. I know history of my country and not only from textbooks but also from the people who saw it by their own eyes.
Probably the population did not fall according the official Stalin's statistics. But in fact, there were three llarge famines during the Soviet occupation: two before the WWII and one just after the liberation in 1946. Millions of people died!
But it is not the matter of the present discussion which of two occupations was better. If you like the Soviet one - it's your choise.
We discuss here whether this article should reflect the POV of victors (the Soviets in this case) or it should respect WP:NPOV and use neutral wording.
Please explain why you consider the newtral wording like "take control of" unacceptable and why you reverted the article. --AndriyK 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I find the suggestion that just because "western" literature says something then it is correct to be laughable. Indeed, using "liberation" to refer to Red Army advances in Eastern Europe (Poland, Romania, I don't know enough about Ukraine) just shows that many western authors don't have a clue. Although sure the Soviet occupation of say Poland was much better than the Nazis'. They only killed about 1% of the population instead of 20%! Deuar 19:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
In 1944-45 Soviet Union liberated its own land and eastern Europe. There is no question about that whatsover, and svidomi POVs have no leverage on wiki.--Kuban Cossack 19:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The context is not just "liberation" but "liberation from Nazism". Even some Polish editors that are difficult to suspect in Russophilic views agree to such formulation. Of course for such a neutrallity warrior as AndriyK accepting anything at all is an impossibility. --Irpen 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you propose to call the Nazi occupation "liberation from Communism"?--AndriyK 08:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Look I got this from the wiki article about Ukraine
Initially, the Germans were received as liberators by many Ukrainians, especially in western Ukraine which had only been occupied by the Soviets in 1939. However, German rule in the occupied territories eventually aided the Soviet cause. Nazi administrators of conquered Soviet territories made little attempt to exploit the population of Ukrainian territories' dissatisfaction with Soviet political and economic policies. Instead, the Nazis preserved the collective-farm system, systematically carried out genocidal policies against Jews, and deported others (mainly Ukrainians) to work in Germany. Under these circumstances, most people living on the occupied territory passively or actively opposed the Nazis. Total civilian losses during the war and German occupation in Ukraine are estimated between five and eight million, including over half a million Jews shot and killed by the Einsatzgruppen, sometimes with the help of Ukrainian collaborators. Of the estimated eleven million Soviet troops who fell in battle against the Nazis, about a quarter (2.7 million) were ethnic Ukrainians. Ukraine is distinguished as one of the first nations to fight the Axis powers in Carpatho-Ukraine, and one that saw some of the greatest bloodshed during the war.
After liberation the population didnt go down 5-8 million every 3 years instead it grew (Deng 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC))
Deng, you try to push the discussion away from the subject. The discussion is not about which of two occupations was more terrible. It is about the use of neutral wording instead of Soviet propaganda cliches in the article.--AndriyK 08:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Some good points are made here, and "liberate" may not be objectionable in most circumstances. However, there are passionate differences of opinion here, so we should aim for a correspondingly high level of NPOV. The word liberate is defined as, "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." When you liberate something, you are granting liberty and, hence, breaking shackles. Yes, the foreign control part is strictly accurate, but the other meanings give the term a strong connotation that there was relatively greater oppression prior to the action. This is a controversial implication that may be examined, but should not be allowed to sneak in the back door. Take, as an alternative, is far better, although I think there is a slight connotation that the actor is not the rightful owner of what is being taken (implied by the existence of its counterpart, retake). I still feel that purely militaristic terminology, as a precise jargon unrelated to politics, will be the least POV. Battle of Lower Dnieper, not the liberation or taking. The X army advanced to a strong point at A, the Y army retreated to entrenched positions at B. The focus of this article is a military action, let's keep it that way. - PatrickFisher 03:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree. Deuar 09:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I also agree in general. But we have to look into details. I would ask native English speakers to check whether the phrase "Soviet troops advanced to the left shore of Dnieper" is correct. May be there is a more appropriate militaric term.
The same for "advancing into Kiev as well" and "Stalin was determined to pursue Soviet Army advance to occupied territories".
If there're no problem with the language, I'll support this version.--AndriyK 10:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberate is the most accurate term, since it was territory within the Soviet Union that had been occupied by a hostile foreign country. I don't really see why it's so contreversial, other than because polititians will often twist the meaning of that word. (Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, Liberation of Iraq, etc., etc. MarcusGraly 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is controversial because the territory under discussion was occupied by Bolshevik Russia two decades before the German occupation and a great fraction of its population did not consider the re-occupation by Soviets as a liberation. Therefore the word "liberation" is not neutral as it reflects the pro-Soviet POV.
Ukraine had been a part of Russia for nearly 1000 years, not two decades. MarcusGraly 17:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
First, please learn history before you start argueing. Russia did not even exist for 1000 year.
Second, it does not matter how long lasts the occupation. It remains an occupation if the population demonstrates the willigness to independence.
Ukraine was under Russian control prior to 1917 (as well as Finland, Poland, Baltic states, Belarus etc.). But then Bolshevik Russia ceded it (as well as Finland, Poland, Belarus, Baltic states etc) in 1918.
Ukraine and Belarus were occupied by Soviet Russia two years later.
Would not you claim that the Soviet-Finnish war of 1940 was not an agression of the Soviet Union? Was it "liberation" or "returning own territories"?
Why the saizure of Ukraine and Belarus in 1920 should be considered differently?
8 to 12 million Ukrainians died between 1920-1941. Was it not an occupation?
A new famine came in 1946,just in two years after the "liberation". Again a lot of people died.
What happened after 1943-44? Were Ukraininas allowed to elect their own goverment? Were they allowed to be the arbiters of their own destiny? In what sence was it liberation?
Why do you insist on this Soviet propaganda cliche? Why are not you satisfied with a more neutral formulation?--AndriyK 18:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
When the Americans took places in Western Europe it's always described as Liberation. When the Soviets take them, even within their own country (!), it's not? Read the article on History of Ukraine. Stalin's forced collectivazation and intustriallization programs where disasterous, that is undeniable, but this was not an attempt to supress the Ukrainian people. In fact, prior to that great effort was made to promote Ukrainian culture and language.
Regarding the claim about Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: The Soviet Goverment was under a very desperete situation, Germany had basically beat them militarily and the Whites were gaining strength. According to your reasoning, the French govement is also "occupying" the areas is ceeded to Germany in 1940, so it agreed to that under treaty. Unlike Poland, Finland and the Baltic States, which sought their independence, The Ukrainian Goverment that formed during the Civil War sided with the Soviets and agreed to the Union.
Your last rationalization is that Ukraine was not liberated beacause the USSR was not a democracy. In this case, nowhere in China was liberated from Japan, nor was the Philapines liberated, since it was a colony, etc. etc. MarcusGraly 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Promoting Ukrainian culture and language is not the same as self-rule. The Soviet acquisition of the territories of present-day Ukraine occured in a somewhat hostile and rather oppressive manner after Ukrainians had attempted self-rule following the collapse of the Russian Empire. I'm not stating the the Soviet Union was inherently evil, but rather that this was a case of occupation by a foreign government which then dictated commands to the Ukrainian SSR. Such actions do not warrant the term "liberating".--tufkaa 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Using militaric terms as suggested by PatrickFisher would be most reasonable and neutral.--AndriyK 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Read what I posted a few lines up you think that "The Nazi occupation was bad indeed, but the Soviet one was not better" WHICH PROVES WHERE YOU STAND. I showed you that during the 3 years that 5-8 million people died and you think that is equall to what happened after the liberation. That shows that you are extremly POV pushing (Deng 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC))
Dear SuperDeng, please do not push the discussion away from the point. We do not discuss here wich of two occupations was better. You may like the Soviet one, I may hate the both.
The subject of the discussion is the neutral wording insted of Soviet propaganda cliches.--AndriyK 17:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
What about "reclaimed"? The Soviet forces "reclaimed" territory which they controlled prior to the German invasion. This doesn't imply that they were welcomed as the governing authority as the word "liberate" might imply. It also doesn't invalidate the prior Soviet control of the territory.--tufkaa 17:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue about who was good and who was bad for Ukraine is off-topic here. In the context of WW2 the term always implies liberation from nazi occupation. A wrath of western WW2 books use this term and it is applicable without any doubt. Besides, even in modern independent Ukraine itself the term is used. The anniversary of "Vyzvolennya" (literary translation of "liberation") is celebrated by parades and various public events. But even this is only slightly related. Liberation from Nazi occupation is factually correct and is used widely.

Even the Britannica, which is as mainstream as one can possibly be, the term is used. From Kiev article in EB: "General Nikolay Vatutin, commander of the Soviet forces that liberated Kiev in 1943". ALso, same article: "In 1943 the advancing Soviet troops forded the Dnieper and, after bitter fighting, liberated Kiev on November 6.". I am saddened that AndriyK still does nothing but POV-pushing revert wars. Please write something rather than damage the work of others. --Irpen 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As I already answered you. Not all wester authors care about neutrality. What they write is often based on Soviet sources hence the terminology used.
Britannica is a respectable source, but not necessarily a neutral source, because its author can be also biased as well as other western or eastern aouthors.
If Ukrainian Government consider it as liberation, it is just a POV of Ukrainian Government it is not a NPOV.
The point is that there is a significant number of people that do not consider the restoring of Soviet control over Ukraine as liberation.
OTOH, why do you consider neutral terms wrong?
What is wrong with "Soviet Army took control of Kiev"? It remained under control of Nazis or a third party?
What is wrong with "Stalin was determined to pursue Soviet Army advance"? You mean it did not advance?
What is you problem with the alternative versions? Please explain clearly.--AndriyK 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The question remains whether "liberation" is inherently a POV term, regardless of how it has been used in the past. I think that a very valid case of POV can be made in this instance as the people of Ukraine had already claimed independence not 25 years prior to this particular instance of "liberation". I can see how prior to the claim of independence, an invasion of and subsequent reclaiming of territory could have been termed a "liberation". But once the native population declares sovereignty, any claim of "liberation" which does not involve self-rule promotes a POV which dismisses the history of the occupied people.
Any takers for "reclaim"?--tufkaa 19:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt at comprmise, but reclaim just isn't used in this context. When someon says "reclaimed land" they usually mean land that has been decontaminated or some such. Furthermore, I'll beleive that liberation is inherently POV when I see a heated discussion on the Liberation of Paris page. MarcusGraly 19:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You are referring to but a single meaning of the word "reclaim". If in the context of the article people assume that the Soviet Army was a team of environmental scientists, then that is the result of a poorly worded article or maybe the poor vocabulary of the reader. To reclaim: to regain possession of -- this seems a reasonable and non-POV substitute to "liberation" in this article.
The problem with the Paris analogy is that you've ignored the entire reasoning of those opposed to "liberation" on the grounds that it is POV. Once the native population declares sovereignty, any claim of "liberation" which does not involve self-rule promotes a POV which dismisses the history of the occupied people. Paris was "set free from oppression, confinement, or foreign control"; the people who populated the banks of the Dnipro were not.--tufkaa 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think reclaim is a great suggestion. Everywhere that liberate could be used, I would use reclaim instead. - PatrickFisher 22:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to "reclaim" or "take". Any term in the set: liberate, take, reclaim, occupy, etc. may have a POV interpretation depending on how strongly one hates/loves the Soviets (or the Nazis for that matter). As such, the absolutely neutral terms simply don't exist, and they can't exist, since we are dealing with history and politics rather than math and science. Historic subjects are inherently more emotional and colorful and we don't want the articles to be fully censored to the extent that they are unreadable to a non-professional historian. Besides, this is an encyclopedia, not a journal publication and should be written for the general public, not professional historians.

This is exactly the case where the term to use should be determined by the prevailing usage in the mainstream historiography. That other author "don't have to be neutral like us" is mere nonsense. All respected historians attempt and strive for neutrality in their writings. So is Britannica and any source that claims respectability. "Liberation from Nazi occupation" is a specific term widely used in the mainstream, and the author who writes the WP article should be allowed to use it without the fear of someone who hasn't written anything ever for Wikipedia but roams from article to article with his extreme views and inflames a bunch of edit wars until s/he gets blocked again for disruption. --Irpen 06:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what kind of POV interpretion the terms "take" may have? Is it charged with any sympathy to Nazis? Or with hatred to Soviets?
What about "advanced into". Is it also negatively charged to Soviets?--AndriyK 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That is beside the point. The French do not mind to use the terms Liberate for the WWII when the second front opened. USSR was part of the anti-Hitler coalition on equal terms and here it was liberating its own land. There is no question. It liberated its own land. Besides historically one might even despute wether New Russia is even Ukrainian. And its residents CERTAINLY welcomed the glorious Red Army as liberators. Instead of taking pride in that history you make it seem that you have nothing to do with it. SHAME ON YOU! --Kuban Cossack 12:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Kuban kazak, your point of view is clear. The matter of the discussion is not how to represent your or my POV, but about the neutral POV.--AndriyK 12:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And Liberated is a neutral POV when applied to this scenario. --Kuban Cossack 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Not everything what you like is neutral. Learn to respect other oppinions and look for a compromise.--AndriyK 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. Ukrainian state opinion is the same for WWII Soviet actions. Victory day is still a public holiday and even your president attendended the Moscow Parade last year. Ukrainians too fought in the Red Army from soldiers to Marshals. There is no compromise here whatsoever. We use genocide when referring to nazi war crimes, we use liberate for territories that the Red Army freed from the Nazis. All of the territory of pre-1939 Ukraine has been liberated regardless of how you and your svidomy losers look at it. --Kuban Cossack 14:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Everybody has already understood your opinion. There is no need to repeat the same in different variations.
It would be nice if you understand that your opinion is not the only possible one.--AndriyK 15:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No it is not. It is FACT. FACT which is repeated in MOST western historical books. FACT which is shared by the Ukrainian government and ALL its peoples (− 3—5 oblasts), particulary of those regions. Yours is an opinion.--Kuban Cossack 15:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Kuban Cossack, I've seen sources (well written ones too) saying that the Red Army liberated Poland! Telex 15:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you therefore inclined to agree with the assertion svidomy losers? :)
But they are! --Kuban Cossack 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It is clear to me that a difference exists between territories that were allowed to self-govern after the defeat of Germany, and the ones that remained under the direct governmental control of the forces which had driven out the Germans. I believe that a similar discussion surrounds the articles Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–2006 (not "Liberation of Iraq") and 2003 invasion of Iraq. "Liberating" has POV connotations, and its use in previously published texts does not imply correctness in any way; there are many historical texts covering a variety of periods that contain POV language. One of the reasons that Wikipedia is a groundbreaking reference is because of its devotion to NPOV, which has significantly altered people's interpretation of past history. Point being, we are not bound by the POV of those who came before us.
Iraq was a clear invasion since a) it is a sovereign country. b) Its borders were recognised by United Nations and other treaties. c) From the start everybody called it invasion, even the United States. Soviet Territory was Soviet at start of war. It was liberated by the Soviets. Germany on the other hand was occupied, it was even split into occupational zones. Czech republic, Poland, Yugoslavia and occupied USSR was liberated from the nazi rule. Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania were invaded. Such is the breakdown in all western WWII atlases and historical sources. --Kuban Cossack 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Please reconsider my proposal of "reclaim", and if you find it unacceptable on POV grounds, could you state your objections? Thanks! --tufkaa 19:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No Original Research. That is the objection as it clearely dictates that we are not going to invent new terminology to replace the one that is used predominately in English literature and media. WRT to what I said above that is the convention which should adopted throught wiki.--Kuban Cossack 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tufkaa, any word chosen here bears some POV flavor. Reclaim, same as claim, implies the legitimacy is not unquestionable. "..the United States claimed the territory up to Russian Alaska (54o 40' N) and the British claimed the land down to the Columbia River."[3] Or "The United States claimed to be "saving" the people of Iraq from a tyrant and bringing democracy to the Middle East."[4] I don't want to get into an argument on the legitimacy of the Soviet control over Ukraine. Both sides have their arguments.

The issue here is that each and every word has a POV flavor. The only solution is to use what the respected scholars use. They do use "liberate" in the context of kicking Nazis out. We do not have to use this term in each sentence of the article, but we should be allowed to use it and we should not tolerate "editors" who write nothing but roam from article to article with word changing ideas and POV tag insertions. --Irpen 20:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Respected scholars do not write encyclopedias - and they do not have to follow the NPOV rules. We do. If we are to chose between liberated on one side and occupied on the other, I'd say we go for some other compromise choice. //Halibutt 20:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, we have: Columbia Encyclopedia says that the Soviet troops liberated:
  • Warsaw: When Warsaw was liberated (Jan., 1945) by Soviet troops, only about 200 Jews remained. [5]
  • Brest: (in Belarus) ...occupied by Germany from 1941–44, and finally liberated by the Soviet army. [6]
  • Prague: Prague was liberated in May, 1945, by Soviet troops after an anti-German rebellion (May 5). [7]
Telex 20:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And according to Britannica: "General Nikolay Vatutin, commander of the Soviet forces that liberated Kiev in 1943". (Kiev article) and "In 1943 the advancing Soviet troops forded the Dnieper and, after bitter fighting, liberated Kiev on November 6." (same article). --Irpen 20:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
EXACTLY. That proves that in cases such as those above and in general the Soviet Union liberated occupied territories, is the standard convention used by Western media and thus in English language and thus suitable for wikipedia, in any case No original research clearely states that inventing a new convention is not allowed. Therefore there is really nothing more to discuss as any compromise solutions are original research. Thus this debate is over. Unless someone files a mediation, in that case my stance is clearely explained, and in the case of this article in particular I shall not change it. --Kuban Cossack 21:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, you are dead wrong here that the respected scholars don't write encyclopedias and that don't have to write neutrally. A politician doesn't have to be neutral, the scholar does if he has any respectability claim. Britannica and Columbia certainly have a NPOV policy. Here is the statement from the EB's web-site: "Britannica provides neutral, unbiased perspectives on issues and conflicts." Even those article in EB which are "signed" are all written by respected researchers in the field from the world's top universities. So, pls no BS that a researcher who writes in his professional field doesn't have to be neutral. He not always is but he always tries to, at list he should. If you are saying that you, as an author, are more neutral than Britannica this would be a Wikipedia joke of the day. --Irpen 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Liberation" has been recognized by others on Wikipedia to be POV, and is considered still by others to be patently offensive. Why then encourage the use of such a word? To use a term such as "reclaim" is by no means original research; if anything, consider it a broadening of our collective vocbulary (i.e., it's been used plenty to describe geopolitical and military developments). And frankly, because a term such as "reclaim" implies the legitimacy is not unquestionable, that is precisely why it is more agreeable to a broader public (although I also question the use of the word "legitimacy" in such a context; perhaps "right of rule"). I do not read anything perjorative or lauditory behind a statement such as:
During this four-month campaign, Soviet troops reclaimed the left shore of the Dnieper, crossed it in force, created several bridgeheads on the right shore, and reclaimed Kiev as well.
In fact, the alternate meanings of the word (bring, lead, or force to abandon a wrong or evil course of life...make useful again; transform from a useless or uncultivated state) actually could lend someone to interpret the aforementioned statement with a positive connotation. However, this way, we stay clear of "liberation" which is frankly too politically volatile.
Volatile for whom? For you? If the official term that the Ukrainian governemnt endorses which mounts quite a landslide against your suggestion. Reclaimed is most of all vague. I would use that term in a battle article when a city changes hands several times (like in the battles of Kharkov), but not when its liberated for good. Sorry, but I cannot see why you would not acccept liberate. --Kuban Cossack 21:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to note that there are many common terms and opinions that are used predominantly by people, historians, and the media. Not all of these bear the merit of repeating them.--tufkaa 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes which why we must use respectible sources, which when filtered from svidomy bullshit will cut that not all of these by a good majority. --Kuban Cossack 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Again with the svidomy perjoratives... :)
"Liberation" as a term irrespective of this article, or Ukrainian history for that matter, is problematic and politically volatile. Agreed? What I am suggesting therefore is to "take the high road", and use a word that won't mire this or similar articles in political/national dialogues such as these.
Once again, forget about Russia and the USSR, if the Ukrainian government agrees on it, if the absoloute majority of credible western sources agree on it! If the majority of Ukrainians (minus the Galician appendix and some hardheads in Kiev) agree on them! HOW IS IT IRRESPECTIVE??? There are veterans right now in Ukraine and their grandchildren are alive because 62 years ago they freed this land from the nazi filth! What is this (self-censored) you are on about that it is irrespective to the millions of Ukrainians? The fact that someone is trying to downplay their heroic and glorious single contribution to the Ukrainian future is an outrageous disrespect to them and the history of Ukraine altogether! They fought, they freed their land, so that their children could grow up there. --Kuban Cossack 22:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems there are views represented on this page: a side for keeping "liberation", and a side which advocates for a change agreeable to more parties. At present, the latter side does not seek a 180 degree reversal with a charge of occupation levelled at the Soviet government, and some on the former side will acknowledge the politically charged connotations of the term "liberation". Can we come closer still? I am not married to the term "reclaim", but I have not read any similar proposal.--tufkaa 21:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no other word no reclaim no retake nothing else. Those soldiers Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian, Tatar and all the nationalities of the USSR, irrespecive of the political history of that country fought to live on that land! They freed it from the occupiers, they raised their children on it! There is no alternative to liberation! Period. --Kuban Cossack 22:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, please stay polite. Leave the rudeness to those you despise.

Tufkaa, the problem, as I said earlier, is that almost every term has a POV flavor. We may come up with a word that doesn't and I agree to also use it. It would be plain stupid to use "liberation" all the time throughout the article. We may use "advanced into", "drove out" and even disliked by me "took" at times. But I want that "liberation" be allowed to use along with other words to the editors. This is my offer of compromise: Liberation can be used for the events of driving out Nazis but not uniformly throughout the text, but as one of several variants. And "occupation" should not be even in the picture for 43-45. It is fine to use occupation in certain context though, for '39. How about that? --Irpen 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if it reffers to a battle detail then yes took up positions, advanced into, drove out even occupied when reffering to buildings or defences. Sure, on the contrary repitiveness is wrong in this case, but when we reffer to the larger picture - Freed and liberated. --Kuban Cossack 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there have been a few misinterpretations. In my prior comment I was asking if everyone agreed that the term "liberation" is problematic on its own, not erasing the history of the Soviet Union with my use of the word irrespective (as in the use of "liberation" in a context not having anything to do with the current article). My purpose here is not to belittle the Soviet Union. Quite the contrary, I am trying to eliminate unnecessary phrasings which serve only to stoke opinionated vandalism and revert wars, and I think the best way is to find a reasonable alternative. There are Ukrainian references citing this period as a period of conquest by the Soviets. Neither I, nor those above who find "liberation" questionable are at present advocating for "occupation" or similar term to be inserted into this article. Rather, an alternative is being sought to the term "liberation" which does not imply that freedom was gained by the inhabitants of the area.

How about using other words throughout, and leaving "liberation" in a historical explanatory note (eg. This battle has been historically referred to as a liberation, however later developments in the area did not result in society free from foreign domination; I'm sorry that is very poorly worded, but a tactful version of that would be my intent.)?

Also, the revulsion to "take", as brought up by Mbuk below, is exactly the reaction that many have to "liberation" and yet it is still advocated. How is "liberation" less problematic than "take"?--tufkaa 23:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(I just laughed out loud at your last outburst, KK. Please let me at least appear to be doing work...)--tufkaa 23:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I was asking if everyone agreed that the term "liberation" is problematic on its own no it is not problematic for reasons explained above.--Kuban Cossack 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
There are Ukrainian references citing this period as a period of conquest by the Soviets. So Soviets are conquesting Ukrainian land...very interesting but that is an outright POV, as the official Ukrainian tone has none of it. And there are quite a lot MORE Ukrainian (ie published in Ukraine) refrences that on the contrary endorse liberation. --Kuban Cossack 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to eliminate unnecessary phrasings which serve only to stoke opinionated vandalism and revert wars. If you are trying to appease this fellow, then don't even bother. Just revert all of his trollish acts. If in doubt, always reffer to his arbitrartion for past records of his behaivour. --Kuban Cossack 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
which does not imply that freedom was gained by the inhabitants of the area WHAT? That is pure historical POV and Bull..t. In the Red Army Ukrainian soldiers fought along with Ukrainian partisans along with the Ukrainian people to free Ukrainian land from the genocidal regime. That is fact, if the western front use Liberation for Paris or Belgium, there is not going to be any double standards for the eastern front. USSR was an equal ally to the anti-nazi coalition. There is not going to be any deragotory claims, in wiki, that downplay its role of freeing the world from nazism.--Kuban Cossack 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
however later developments in the area did not result in society free from foreign domination That is an outrageous POV as well. Foreign domination - the Ukrainian SSR was a Ukrainian republic representing Ukrainians. In 1991 it left the USSR agreement, dropeed the SSR from its name, changed its national insignia and constitution, but is irrlevant. Modern Ukraine is a direct successor to the UkSSR. UkSSR was the sole ruling body representing Ukrainians at that time. In the aftermath of Kiev being liberated it returned to a being a capital of a republic rather than some outpost of the occupying army.--Kuban Cossack 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I find that 'liberated from Nazis' is usually a good compromise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If the fact that other media use it is a reason enough for pushing the term liberation eventhough it is disputed (and it clearly is), then we should as well use other such terms as long as they are present in other media. Soviet occupation of Poland out of greed and imperialism, liberation from the Soviet yoke and so on are to be accepted as well, I presume? //Halibutt 19:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The argument here is not the media usage. The argument is scholarly usage in most mainstream books about the WW2 and two most respected English language encyclopedia'.

If your pet terms are as widely used, we should use them as well. --Irpen 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In this type of case (general descriptive term/phrase, in the body of an article), I believe that consensus and NPOV should trump scholarly usage. Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia and all that. If a more neutral, alternative general descriptive term/phrase can be agreed upon, I see no problem with using it in the article. heqs 20:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that WP is more neutral than the combined authority of Britannica, Columbia and all the major WW2 history books? And don't get me wrong, I also see no problem in using other terms as well. For purely styllistac reasons having the article full of liberation looks bad. But I am against an automatic censorship of this word, especially by users who do nothing on Wikipedia but roam into article to send them to havoc and leave. --Irpen 00:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you interpret the policies and guidelines. I believe that for this sort of thing, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:Consensus should do work synergistically. I believe that WP can be more neutral than Britannica et al when this works. Traditional encyclopedia editors generally strive for neutrality, but they are not following Wikipedia's NPOV policy. In this type of case, the traditional editor may simply be apt to follow (for instance) a convention such as liberated. They do not necessarily engage in debate with a pool of other editors to determine a more neutral term. The change is fine as long as it does not reduce the article's verifiability, or substantially alter the meaning of the larger article. I realize that in some cases it may be impossible to bridge people's subjective understandings of certain words and reach consensus. someone shot me, I'm wikiphilosophizing... heqs 01:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

After reading almost all of the above I still don't get why "take" is not a neutral word? I think it's an appropriate and neutral word and it should be used. In particular, in the first paragraph the verb "liberate" is used twice, which as far as I understand is bad syntax. Instead of repeating "liberation" twice, once we can say "liberation", and the other time "take". It would not hurt to say "liberation from Nazi" at least once to close all the questions (as User:Piotrus proposed). KPbIC 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV

I suggest everybody partiocipating in this discussion to read WP:NPOV and answer yourself the following questions:

  • Should WP represent the POV of Ukrainian (or any else) Government?
  • Should WP represent only the POV of majority?
  • Should it represent exclusively the mainstream POV?
  • Should it represent the POV of autors of Britannica or any other encyclopaedia?

You will find that the answer to the all questions is NO. Therefore, all the arguments about "mainstream", what is recognized by Ukrainian Government and what is suspported by majority in the West are irrelevant.

The purpose of WP is to represent neutral POV, i.e. the point of view that "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

  • If one says "The Soviet Army liberated some territory" then one expresses one's sympathetic view about the Soviet Army and the kind of administration that was (re)established after the "liberation".
  • If one says "The Soviet Army occupied some territory" then one represent one's opposition to the Soviet army and the Communist regime

Then both versions are not neutral even if the former one has more supporters.

I read Irpen's comment below aboud the negatrive flavor of the word "take" in English. It would be, however, nice to see a comment of a native English speaker.

In any case, nobody objected so far against "advance" or "enter". Why not "Soviet Army advance to occupied territories" and "Soviet Army entered Kiev."?--AndriyK 11:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

  • You will find that the answer to the all questions is NO. No individually, but when ALL of the above use the same term that is quite a landslide.
  • If one says "The Soviet Army 'liberated' some territory" then one expresses one's sympathetic view about the Soviet Army and the kind of administration that was (re)established after the "liberation". That is not sympathetic, that is the way it took place. And it was not the Soviet but the Red Army and the administration was exiled whilst their capital was occupuied. Like I said before the Ukrainian SSR was the sole legitimate body that was recognised as the representetive of the Ukrainian people.
  • If one says "The Soviet Army "occupied" some territory" then one represent one's opposition to the Soviet army and the Communist regime Exactly, one, by one we take it as YOU, and some sidomy fairytales originating in the galician appendix of the country and from the emirge society. Read WP:Credible source.--Kuban Cossack 13:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kuban kazak, please add your comments after other user's comments. Your numerous insertions make the talk page difficult to read.--AndriyK 14:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure!--Kuban Cossack 14:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No individually, but when ALL of the above use the same term that is quite a landslide. I ask you once more: please read WP:NPOV. Did you find there anything similar to what you wrote?
  • That is not sympathetic, that is the way it took place. And it was not the Soviet but the Red Army and the administration was exiled whilst their capital was occupuied. Like I said before the Ukrainian SSR was the sole legitimate body that was recognised as the representetive of the Ukrainian people.
    • Soviet/Red - does not matter. I do not remember the date when it was renamed, but it's unimportant in the present context.
    • The administration was controlled by Moscow. Legitimacy of such administartion as the representetive of the Ukrainian people is an obvious POV.
      Yet that was the internationally recognised administration
  • Exactly, one, by one we take it as YOU, and some sidomy fairytales originating in the galician appendix of the country and from the emirge society. If one does not have serious arguments, one switches to personal attacs. (I do not origimate from Galicia, BTW).--AndriyK 16:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I ask you once more: please read WP:NPOV. Did you find there anything similar to what you wrote? Liberated is a neutral term that is used everywhere. Suggesting something else is Original Research.
      • I do not remember the date when it was renamed - early 1946.
      • Legitimacy of such administartion as the representetive of the Ukrainian people is an obvious POV. That was the sole representetive that was internationally recognised at the time. And if it was controlled from Moscow then how would Moscow allow it do declare independence in 1991??? Like I said again I think quite a LOT of Ukrainians (by far the majority) fought for their motherland in the Red Army and the partisans. They FREED that land from the Nazi invaders to raise their children on it. That is a fact!--Kuban Cossack 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • If one does not have serious arguments, one switches to personal attacs. (I do not origimate from Galicia, BTW). The argument is this Ukrainian nationalist catch phrase: There is no difference in Eastern and Western Ukrainins. In that case if Official Kiev uses liberation, if majority of Ukrainians (again minus the Galicians) fought for their country in the ranks of the Red Army from soldiers to marshals then I take it the term applies universally to ALL Ukraine, from Volhynia to Sloboda, from Galicia to Donbass, from Podolia to Tavria. Ukrainian lands that were liberated by Ukrainians in 1943-44. That is a fact with one ommission that it was not only Ukrainians that fought in the Red Army, but they sure made up a sizable chunk of it. (It was roughly a fifth, proportional to the population distribution of the USSR) --Kuban Cossack 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kuban kazak, please read my comments carefully and read WP:NPOV I explained above why "liberation" is not a neutral term. The opinion of Ukrainian Goevrnment is irrelevant to WP. What is used "everywhere" and "by majority" is also irrelevant. WP should use neutral wording. The discussion is useless if you repeat your just state your POV many times without listening to other people.--AndriyK 08:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your comments have more POV in them than any other ones do. What you are saying is that it be best if the Red Army did not liberate Ukraine from Nazism. It is pity for you that Ukraine never turned into "living room" for Aryans... I sm sorry but you are being rediculous. What about the millions of Ukrainians that fought in the Red Army have you forgot about them?--Kuban Cossack 09:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP articles should use neutral wording. This is the only thing what I am saying. Averything else is a product of your immagination.--AndriyK 09:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Millions of Ukrainians fighting for their land is my imagination. Bravo AndriyK. That really says just how much you are worth as a sourced neutral contributor. --Kuban Cossack 11:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words.--AndriyK 14:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Andriy sometimes you are so vague that it is impossible to see what is it you are trying to say. --Kuban Cossack 15:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Intermediate summary of the discussion

Because some people were removing the POV tag alleging that there was a consensus, I decided to review the discussion for the convenience of all parties. (If I unintentionally presented anybody's position inaccurately, please feel free to correct).

As you see, there is no consensus. The discussion is not over. Removing of the tag in this case should be considered as WP:Vandalism.--AndriyK 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

11 against 5 is called absolute majority in all cases. We're in democracy here... -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 18:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Grafikm, perhaps you might take some of your time reading this Russian Architecture, be sure to go into the archive of the talk page to realise just what kind of nascient person you are dealing with. --Kuban Cossack 19:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I read it thoroughly KK, don't worry, since it was mentionned in his ArbCom file. That's why I locked this page in the first place. Obviously, without Russian occupation, Ukrainians would already colonize Jupiter satellites... :))) -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 19:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Grafikm, perhaps first of all you should read: Wikipedia is not a democracy. As well as "Wikipedia works by building consensus" (WP:DR) and "Decisions should be made by consensus decision making rather than a strict majority rule" (WP:STRAW). KPbIC 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Well in that case the bottom line, as suggested nearly a month ago is for those who are unhappy, file a mediation. Mediation committee will decide wether its suitable for the tag to be reinstated. Untill the user who seems to do anything but the suggested good faith action above, the discussion is over. Unless someone wants to repeat it in circles again. --Kuban Cossack 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Then file that mediation, and try to explain your theory of "everyone is POV" and "I'm the only one to be right" to mediators... I'm sure it will be quite a show... :)))) -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 20:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Since noone has made any clear points, can all those who've been alerted to come and "vote" here please read the summary of different positions below, and help bring us towards consensus by explaining your thoughts. Thank you! --tufkaa 06:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Mediation

Mediation makes sence if the involved parties recognise that there is a POV problem and would like to use assistence of a mediator to solve it and build a consensus. So far one of the parties pretended that there is no problem and was removing the tag. Before I request the mediation I would like to see whether there are people in the opposite party who is ready to participate in the mediation procedure and build a consensus. Please, everybody who is ready to take part in the mediation procedure add youre name to the list below.--AndriyK 09:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to participate in a mediation procedure to build a consensus about the use of word "liberate" and its derivatives in the present article and other WWII articles.

  1. AndriyK
  2. heqs 15:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kuban Cossack 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC), however my position is such that unless liberate is purged from all WWII articles, eastern and western fronts, there is not going to be any double standards about Soviet participation in freeing the world from Nazi tyranny. --Kuban Cossack 17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Дорога на Берлин

Слова Е.Долматовского, музыка М.Фрадкина
Исполняет: Л.Утесов 1945г.

С боем взяли мы Орел, город весь прошли, 
И последней улицы название прочли, 
А название такое, право слово, боевое: 
Брянская улица по городу идет - 
Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...

С боем взяли город Брянск, город весь прошли, 
И последней улицы название прочли,                
А название такое, право слово, боевое:            
Минская улица по городу идет -                    
Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...

С боем взяли город Минск, город весь прошли, 
И последней улицы название прочли, 
А название такое, право слово, боевое: 
Брестская улица по городу идет - 
Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...

С боем взяли город Брест, город весь прошли, 
И последней улицы название прочли, 
А название такое, право слово, боевое: 
Люблинская улица по городу идет - 
Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...

С боем взяли город Люблин, город весь прошли, 
И последней улицы название прочли, 
А название такое, право слово, боевое: 
Варшавская улица по городу идет - 
Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...

С боем взяли мы Варшаву, город весь прошли, 
И последней улицы название прочли, 
А название такое, право слово, боевое: 
Берлинская улица по городу идет! 
Значит нам туда дорога, значит на туда дорога!

1945

This song was popular among Soviet soldiers in the end of the war. It uses Russian word "взяли" (wich means "took") with respect to Orel, Bryansk, Minsk, Lublin and Warsaw. So at least in Russian this word has no negative meaning with respect to Soviet soldiers that took the cities from Germans. Is it different in English?--Mbuk 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the soldiers clearely say that with battles we took, i.e. in combat details they did take the city, but in the larger scope of the war they liberated them. --Kuban Cossack 22:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not object against liberation. I just wanted to ask whether the wodr 'take' is as neutral in English as in Russian. I read the discussion and saw some people objecting agains using the word 'take'. Maybe in English it has different flavor?--Mbuk 23:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mbuk, yes, the word Taking has a different flavor. For example in the US law "taking" of property (by the state) applies to the cases when the state (or the Federal gov) takes posession of, say, land, belonging to the private owner with the latter having no right to refuse. Note that "taking" rather than "confiscation" is used. There are laws and laws that elaborate on what the "just" compensation should be and that the taking should be for a clear public benefit (like to make it a wild-life refuge or smth). In the combat detail taking is fine to use, in the overall estimate, liberation is appropriate. Again, I don't argue for exclusive use of this word. However, I oppose to the article-wide trollish purging and replacing like this, especially by the editor whose main contribution to Wikipedia is running edit wars. --Irpen 23:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to be creative about this, how about "acquired"? Telex 23:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone here will be able to explain that the land which was "reclaimed" was Soviet land prior to the German invasion. In that case, they would have "reaquired" this land. Which, now that I think about it, would be technically correct (?).--tufkaa 00:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What? Reaquired implies they aquired it once and then they aquired it again. That is on par with reclaimed, absoloute bollocks. Ukraine was the founding republic of the USSR. That is how it was internationally recognised. Besides like I said before I am not going to allow anyone to downplay the role of the Soviet Union in freeing the world from nazism. That is a fact that no one has the right to challenge. --Kuban Cossack 17:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
In the interests of neutrality, then, perhaps it would be best to explicitly state "liberated from Nazi occupation" or something very similar, as Piotrus suggested above. heqs 19:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well why state the obvious? Who else are they to liberate Ukrainian land from? I think in context of WWII articles that is excessive detail. Of course not being a native english speaker I cannot fully rate just how accurate/inaccuare such overclarification is, but in my opinion it is a form of weasel words.--Kuban Cossack 19:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, every article should present a worldwide view (you can't assume that everyone who stumbles across this article is familiar with the context). The word nazi doesn't even appear anywhere in the article. Alternate suggestion: liberated from Axis occupation. heqs 21:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well in that case it is a sense of copyediting and improving the article, which actually has a good potential of being a DYK and an FA. However under no circumstances are we even touching the term "liberation", it remains. --Kuban Cossack 21:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about DYK and FA, Kuban Kazak. The DYK is already here, I hope it will achieve FA too :)

To all: It took me a whole lot of time to put the initial version of that article together, time that is even more precious because I already have a lot of work in real life. Nevertheless, I wish to contribute to Wikipedia on several subjects including this one, because whether one wants it or not, WW2 is among the greatest pages of human history.

Consequently, the sight of some POV-pushers letting such a work go to waste hurts me. A lot. I am far from being a Russian patriot and I do not even live in Russia, but what was done there must be remembered. Modern history revision to suit ambitions of some politicians, be they in Kiev, Moscow or Upper Volta, is a dangerous game that should be avoided at all costs, especially on a site like Wikipedia. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I fully respect your work and I think factually it is an excellent article. However I could not agree more on you what you say about the politics. This article was vandalised by a person who has been previously blocked by arbcom, by doing so he terrorised a bee hive, which despite, as always, after the original troll was shoowed away, the bees are still stinging. The article is neutral already. All it might need is clarification as proposed by Piotrus and Heqs, but that is minor detail that is irrespective of the overall stance on the word liberation. Also this is rather personal to me, my wife is Volhynian (btw from Rivne, ie the part that was annexed from Poland in 39) and ALL her family fought against the fascist occupiers in partisans and on the fronts and if anyone asks if there is an alternative to the word liberation when the Red Army entered Rivne and were recieved by thousands of locals in joy, you are going to have to put up with some very angry Ukrainians. --Kuban Cossack 23:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't object strongly to liberate, as it is in common usage. I support using the word liberate, unlocking the page, and treating any further POV edits as vandalism. A note to KK about reclaim and reacquire: While they are very similar, reacquire carries a connotation that the subject was previously acquired, but reclaim does not necessarily imply that. It's subtle distinction and hard to explain, but that's what they mean to me, a native speaker; I think these connotations come from the various contexts in which the words are typically used. PatrickFisher 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Lower Dnieper? Or Soviet Summer and Fall Offensives, 1943?

I can find zero sources that refer to "Battle of the Lower Dnieper" that do not originate from this article or Death toll. (By the way, that article lists only 170,000 dead for the whole battle. Stuff like this is original research: "The simple rule of 3:1 losses during an offensive operation against a heavily defended enemy would lead to a 500,000 casualties toll, reaching the one of Kursk. [...] Indeed, if one considers the casualties per day ratio of Kursk battle, an operation twice as long under similar conditions would lead to a 1,000,000 toll.") Anyway, unless someone can cite sources that specifically refer to this "battle", any non-redundant, factual content should be merged into Eastern Front (World War II). heqs 00:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually mergeing is bad becuase the eastern front was cut into smaller articles just because it was to big and this massive article would just get cut and more cut by people if it was merged. (Deng 04:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
It should be merged somewhere, or moved to something verifiable, or deleted, because this "battle" appears to be a very recent invention. heqs 04:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Article are fine to exist under descriptive titles if the event lacks a unified name in the literature. The only issue is for the titles not to be a POV, like List of Polish Martyrdom sites. --Irpen 05:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The battle has many verifiable sources and here they are
  • Nikolai Shefov, Russian fights, Lib. Military History, Moscow, 2002
  • History of Great Patriotic War, 1941 — 1945. Мoscow, 1963
  • John Erickson, Barbarossa: The Axis and the Allies, Edinburgh University Press, 1994
  • Marshal Konev, Notes of a front commander', Science, Moscow, 1972.
  • Erich von Manstein, Lost Victories, Мoscow, 1957.
(Deng 08:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

Are there no page refs? I'm not turning anything up. Another heroic Soviet victory? Creating articles for non-existent battles is POV-pushing, and the "descriptive title" is not accurate. This article is about a period of time, or a series of offensives, not a battle. Most of it is redundant information, and a good deal of it is conjecture. heqs 08:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Another heroic Soviet victory?"
What do you mean?
"...or deleted"
Are you serious about deletion? So, you propose to remove the material from Wikipedia for what exactly reason. "Merged somewhere..." Where to? --Irpen 08:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Eastern_Front_in_Autumn_and_Winter_1943. There's not a single solitary reference for the battle "...considered to be one of the largest battles in world history, involving almost 4,000,000 men on both sides...one of the bloodiest battles, with estimates ranging from 1,700,000 to 2,700,000 casualties on both sides." On the other hand, "some historians do not consider it a discrete "battle," and grant the Battle of Stalingrad the title of the bloodiest battle in history."

Ofcurse it existed just because you havent heard of it before dosent mean it never happened. There are many things in the world and you expect to know them all? Just read more and you will find out. Just go to your local university and ask about the battle or check out the books. Start with John Erickson read all of his books and then move on to David Glantz and you will learn even more. I must stress that just because you havent heard about a thing does not mean it doens not exsist. For example in Sweden there is a town called Kiruna, by your logic it dosent exist and has never exsisted because you have never heard of it, read more and you will find out more (Deng 09:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

I'd settle for a single title and page number where this battle is mentioned... heqs 10:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on are you kidding me? "Battle for Dnieper" is very well known, the name of the river coming in several transcriptions.
  • [8] "Operations of the 10th Airborne Division/82nd Infantry Corps/37th Army in the battle for Dnieper"
  • [9] "During the battle for the Dnieper, in August-December 1943..."
  • [10] "the Battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943), the Battle of Kursk (1943) and the Battle for the Dnieper (1943)."

In Russian, "Battle for Dnieper" is spelled "Битва за Днепр". Look it up in google and you will turn up with a lot of references. [11], [12] and so on.

So why battle of the lower dnieper? because the battle for "high" dnieper is split in Smolensk (1943) (which does not even exist IIRC but I'm working on it).

Man I just don't believe what I just read... -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 10:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean but... Are you suggesting that you are working on article called "Battle of the Upper Dnieper"? Or "Battle of Smolensk (1943)"? Just keep in mind WP:NOR here. It's problematic to have articles about "battles" under any other name than they are called in the sources. It creates misunderstandings like this one and makes it hard to verify the information, like I couldn't find anything under "Battle of the Lower Dnieper". This article should be called "Battle for the Dnieper" or "Battle of the Dnieper" if that's how it's called in the sources. heqs 13:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Where do you see original research here? <_< I'm basing my articles on references that I mention at the bottom of the article, just as everyone should do.
As for the perimeter, you may be right. And ultimately, maybe this article WILL be renamed, but a) it will be done only when articles on Battle of Ukraine and battle of kiev will be finished, maybe allowing some content transfer and b) it will be not up to you or me, but to all the participant in the milhist project to decide. In the meantime, it has too much links
As for the "death toll" article, well, it's false. I tracked down the web list it is based on, and it says 170,000+ with Erickson's USSR KIA number as the only source. I don't have the link right now because I'm not at home, though. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Naming an article about a battle with a name other than the one used in sources is original research as far as I can tell. Please don't try to assert conditions on your article (WP:OWN). The wikiproject doesn't own the article either. Unless there are actual citations for the current name of the article I see no reason why it shouldn't be moved right away(?). I'm not suggesting that I'm going to do anything without consensus either, btw. Please don't be defensive, and I am sorry if I've offended you or anyone with my comments. heqs 18:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I did not name it. It was a link to a non-existing article present in many places (requested pages, milhist requested articles and so on). I clicked on the link, edited the document and saved it. Basically that's it. So the naming of the page is not mine and yes, it should perhaps be moved to Battle of Dnieper. However, I would like the decision of moving the page to be taken as a separate matter, possibly as a discussion on MilHist portal. Oh, and I do not assert conditions, I merely do not want to move the article until its "twins" are completed and/or until an appropriate and separate discussion takes place on the subject :) -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 20:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just assumed that as the creator you created the name. Btw, it seems that most links are from the Soviet-Axis template. heqs 00:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Look at what the creator said and then add that with what I am about to say and here is a bonus link where you can also see a line in a report about something about it that was all that you wanted right ;) http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Sasso/SASSO.asp#dnieper
And why you havent heard more about it is probably that cold war mentality view of the war in the east derives from the German experiences of 1941 and 1942, when blitzkrieg exploited the benefits of surprise against a desperate and crudely fashioned Soviet defense. It is the view of a Guderian, a Mellenthin, a Balck, and a Manstein, all heroes of Western military history, but heroes whose operational and tactical successes partially blinded them to strategic realities. By 1943-44, their "glorious" experiences had ceased. As their operational feats dried up after 1942, the Germans had to settle for tactical victories set against a background of strategic disasters. Yet the views of the 1941 conquerors, their early impressions generalized to characterize the nature of the entire war in the east, remain the accepted views. The successors to these men, the Schoeners, the Heinricis, the defenders of 1944 and 1945, those who presided over impending disaster, wrote no memoirs of widespread notoriety, for their experiences were neither memorable nor glorious. Their impressions and those of countless field grade officers who faced the realities of 1944-45 are all but lost. And why it isnt in the eastern front article is simple; because I am lazy but there is a link below the head line if you look to what you ctrl c ctrl v you will see that just below the head line there is a link here ;). (Deng 10:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
You might be interested in improving the Historiography of World War II article. heqs 13:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Inventing terms is indeed OR, but this is just a descriptive title. It is OK to have IMO. See, for instance, Prussian Holocaust vs Evacuation of East Prussia. The formes is an invented term and is a term article. The latter is an account of the events under the descriptive title. The author of our article here didn't invent any code-names. He simply put the title that describes what the article is about. The suggestion "It should be... , or deleted" over the title looks bizarre. --Irpen 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a deletion at this time. This all started from the misunderstanding caused by naming a battle with a name other than the historical, sourced name. I'd never heard of "Battle of the Lower Dnieper" and couldn't find any references to it that did not originate from Wikipedia. Descriptive titles about more general topics are much more verifiable. I assert that any article about an actual documented battle should use the documented name; I do not think descriptive titles are appropriate for this category of article. heqs 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Descriptive titles are prefectly fine if there is no historically agreed on name (which tends to be the case for a surprisingly large number of battles). In this case, I'm not sure whether it's more appropriate to have this at Battle of the Lower Dnieper or combined with the other operations at Battle of the Dnieper; but it certainly should not be at "Battle for the Dnieper", as that's just an artifact of inexact translation from the Russian name (English uses "Battle of Foo" quite consistently where Russian would use "Battle for Foo" or "Fooish Battle"). Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Sources seem to use "Battle for Dnieper"/"Battle for the Dnieper" almost exclusively, but I agree on Battle of the Dnieper (probably more appropriate than Battle of Dnieper).
Reminder to self: assume good faith, sorry again if I spooked anyone. heqs 00:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem; as far as disagreements go, this one seems to have turned out to be fairly minor ;-)
As far as renaming the article, I'm no expert on WWII; how much additional material would need to be merged here if we were to turn this into a unified Battle of the Dnieper article? Do we even have existing articles on the other portions of the battle, or could we just add redirects from the other titles and go from there? Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There is some info about Mainstein's counterattacks at Erich_von_Mainstein#Dnieper_Campaign.
Are the German crossings of the Dnieper in 1941 (see for instance Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Moscow_and_Rostov:_Autumn_1941) ever considered some sort of "battle"? heqs 01:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No, and for a good reason: because German encircled and captured several armies first at Minsk and then at Kiev, reducing Russian defenses to a shadow of their former selves. This allowed them to cross the Dnieper at ease. And yes, German troops were a bit better prepared too.
Please stop seeing OR and POV everywhere, and please stop trying to remove info from the pagge too... -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 10:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
1) It was an honest question, and 2) Please discuss the specific issues you have with my edit. I can't read your mind. Thanks. heqs 11:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, please stop marking all of your edits as minor. Reverting articles and adding new comments to talk pages are not minor edits. heqs 11:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_the_Dnieper/Archive_1&oldid=1214616487"