User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Divisions of the Soviet Union[edit]

I very much mind, and will revert you if you try. Please have the basic courtesy to ask, rather than inform, when specific users have been heavily involved with articles. W.B. Wilson said himself that the good thing about that list was that it was in one place. As you pointed out yourself, it needs to be separated by branch, and that I would have no disagreement with - the infantry one's already done. But there is no need to hurry - it can be done when there is information enough to fill out branch-specific articles. (And, incidentially, what would you call each breakdown of 10 articles each? I can't imagine!) Buckshot06 (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not articles of 10, just sections of 10 in the list. I am getting a bit sick of having to scroll down pages and pages just to insert one bit of info--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 09:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree with the proposal to break this list up. I think that it's a great resource and works just fine. It's only 46 Kb long, which isn't too bad, especially given the amount of topics the article needs to cover. Any discussion to split the article should only be done after a consensus to do so is reached. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nick, you are looking at the wrong list. This page, see my last contribution, is This page is 108 kilobytes long. Then again, maybe the sections made it that long?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 10:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, serves me right for butting into some-one elses' conversation! I agree that Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917–1957 is rather long, but am not convinced that an outright split is the best option. How about converting it to just a straight list of the names of the divisions and then create sub-lists (blocks of 10 seems much too small - how about blocks of 100 or 50? - these wouldn't be particularly long lists) with the key stats and a very short summary of each division. Longer articles on the individual divisions can then be created at a later stage. I'd also suggest that the sub-lists be set up as tables - this is common for featured lists and seems to be best-practice so you may as well do it when setting up any new large lists with lots of information. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, not a bad suggestion. I don't mind scrolling through 50 divisions, but not 450.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 10:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I will happily modify the page with 100-division blocks along the lines Nick suggests (however, as Kirill suggested, with lists, I think) but that doesn't stop you copying the data and rearranging it, Mrg, any way you wish - please, go ahead, copy the data, and reorganise it by military district at another, new, page. I believe List of German divisions in World War II and Formations of the United States Army during World War II gives enough of a precedent for this page remaining much as it is. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ignorance does not qualify for precedence! The US Army had recruiting districts (aha!) (as part of the Region Recruiting Commands), and Germany had Wehrkreis. So why the linear thinking?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 02:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Says who - you only, just because you disagree with it? And what have military districts got to do with it (Corps areas or the postwar US field armies are better fits for the USA, I think) Take the information - no problem, rewrite it as you wish - the Soviet Armed Forces are big enough to deserve multiple ways of interpreting the data.. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point - a numerical list is NOT one of the "ways of interpreting the data". There is an informal convention in Logic that a discussion of any subject benefits from beginning at the start. Most US divisions did start somewhere, so why start with their Corps areas or the post-war US field armies locations?! The history for these units starts in Continental USA.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

re: FA?[edit]

Admins don't reclassify FAs: such reassessments are dont through a Featured article review, which you can initiate. You can also delist GAs yourself by following the procedure at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, but this should not be done without a discussion on the articles' talk pages, especially as they're FAs. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had never done either of those before, so will have a look at the process.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Be Amazed?[edit]

Um, not sure what you're talking about here Mrg - can you explain? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Soviet Army[edit]

Hi Mrg. I'm a bit torn here. We're both interested in the same subject and our collaberation could be really fruitful (you could say it already is) but we keep on having these massive arguments on presentation. Would an olive branch from me help? I think SoLando's idea of a Structure of the Soviet Army, to match Structure of the British Army, Structure of the Australian Army, etc, is a great idea - much better than our existing Formations of the Soviet Army, which as you rightly say, doesn't cover arms and services. Would you like to move Formations of the Soviet Army to that title - or start off a new one, laying out the structure and contents, and I can help fill in the sections? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, in case you need reminding, I was the one who proposed cooperation when I first returned to editing last year. The problem I have, and not doubt you do also, is that there is so much to do and so little time.

Structure of the Soviet Army would be great, but you had not done that in the articles you edited, and given your emphasis on units and formations, and the sheer volume of work you and Mr Wilson had done, and still have to do, I had not suggested it. The greatest issue I have is that the all the articles and categories are lacking in project coordination. This is funny because I'm currently doing PM associate certification, so I should be able to do the job!

Essentially the Structure of the Soviet Army is predicated on the Structure of the Imperial Russian Army legacy and Structure of the Army of the Russian Federation descendent. So, unlike our peers in the British and US articles, we are (ideally) working on three nations, and not one. This may not be readily apparent in terms of unit lineage, but it is when considering Forces doctrine for which these units and formations were developed. I have grappled with how to approach this best, and obviously have not been successful. On top of this, there is the issue of Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front. It is not as complete in Wikipedia as one may have wished. Typically there are lots of people editing the technology articles, but not the many other articles, some of this just don't exist. Compare Wehrmacht with Structure of the British Army, and you will see that this also needs development, and that makes four.

So, my project goal is to describe Operations on the Eastern Front - both Axis and Soviet. To achieve this goal I need to achieve several objectives within the project scope

  • G0. Describe Imperial Russian Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
  • G1. Trace development of the Red Army from Imperial Army
  • G2. Trace development of the Wehrmacht from Reichswehr
  • G3. Describe Red Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
  • G4. Describe Wehrmacht - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
  • G5. Describe Operations on the Eastern Front

Now, your project goal, as I understand it, consists of the following objectives within the project scope

  • C1. Trace development of the Soviet Army from Red Army
  • C2. Describe Soviet Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
  • C3. Trace transition of the Soviet Army into post-USSR forces of the Former Soviet Union states.

Do I have this correct?

As I see it the objective C1 can not be achieved without the G5, but it would be pointless for me to produce G5 if nothing could be derived in terms of how they influenced C1

I need to go, but if we can agree on the goals and objectives, maybe we can get to cooperate from there in deciding which articles need to be done, in which priority and to what degree of urgency.

I will be tagging articles for use with Igor, and I suggest you also download it. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My project goals could well be described as C1, C2 and C3 above, but I'm not particularly interested in the technology, which is already well served - only the technology as it affects the force (which is probably what you mean). I'm incorporating bits of G5 as they become available.
I think, as you've laid out, that our goals are separate but related. Why don't you lay out your list of priority articles - my only real one, really long since discarded, was to promote Red Army to FA. However I think a Structure of the Soviet Army (Ground Forces) would be really good, but it would have to take in ~45 years of history. Maybe a Structure of the Red Army would be better first. Also I'd like to move Army (Soviet Army) upwards as well. Articles for the 10th and 14th Armies would be good too. I'm now looking more closely at African armies and USAF MAJCOM wings. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Project expansion[edit]

However, you must agree that technology is explicitly interdependent with other aspects of the subject area. It is not possible to write about the Eastern Front without mentioning the T-34 and Il-2, and it is not possible to discuss the Soviet Army without considering the lessons it derived from the war.
Nor is it possible to isolate the Soviet Army from other Types and Branches, particularly Air Force.
So really it should be
  • G01. Describe Imperial Russian Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
    • Grand Strategy
    • Tactics
  • G02. Describe Imperial Russian Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles)
    • Grand Strategy
    • Tactics
  • G02GS Describe Imperial Russian General Staff
    • Strategy
  • G12GS Describe Soviet General Staff
    • Strategy
  • G1A. Trace development of the Red Army from Imperial Army (Revolution and Russian Civil War)
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • G1N. Trace development of the Red Navy from Imperial Navy (Revolution and Russian Civil War)
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • G1AF. Trace development of the Red Air Force from Imperial Army Air Service (Revolution and Russian Civil War)
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • G2. Trace development of the Wehrmacht from Reichswehr (Wehrmacht was all Service inclusive) I'm hoping to find someone else who can do that
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • G3A. Describe Red Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • G3N. Describe Red Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • G3AF. Describe Red Air Force - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • G4. Describe Wehrmacht - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) I'm hoping to find someone else who can do that
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics

Now, your project goal, as I understand it, consists of the following objectives within the project scope

  • C12GS Describe Soviet General Staff development
    • Strategy
  • C1A. Trace development of the Soviet Army from Red Army
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
    • 1st of period (June 1945 - May 1957) - the reduction of the formations of rifle troops with a simultaneous qualitative improvement in their organizational and manning structure and extent of outfitting taking into account realties of the begun “Cold War”;
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
    • 2nd of period (June 1957 - December 1964) the -transition actually of all formations of infantry in the rank of those motorized, a short-term notable increase in their number with the subsequent reduction in the favour of political ambitions;
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
    • 3rd of period (January 1965 - December 1985) - restoration and further increase in the number of formations of the motor rifle troops with the relatively clear priorities in their further development, methods of application, possibilities of their use, etc;
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
    • 4th period (January 1986 - December 1991) - an attempt at the realization of all dogmas of the 3rd period with the subsequent conducting of the “new thinking” policy and indiscriminate reduction of the formations of the motor rifle troops with simultaneous reduction in their qualitative parameters derived from this.
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • C3. Trace transition of the Soviet Forces into post-USSR forces of the Former Soviet Union states.
  • C5. Russian Federation
  • C5A. Describe Russian Federation Army - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • C5N. Describe Russian Federation Navy - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • C5AF. Describe Russian Federation Air Force - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are there
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • C5MF. Describe Russian Federation Missile Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
  • C5SF. Describe Russian Federation Space Forces - organisationally, doctrinally and structurally (incorporate technology articles) technology would be part of doctrinal development; most of the articles are not there?
    • Strategy
    • Operational art
    • Tactics
repeat for the rest
  • C5. Belarus
  • C5. Ukraine
  • C5. Moldova
  • C5. Georgia (country)
  • C5. Armenia
  • C5. Azerbaijan
  • C5. Kazakhstan
  • C5. Uzbekistan
  • C5. Turkmenistan
  • C5. Kyrgyzstan
  • C5. Tajikistan
  • C5. Estonia
  • C5. Lithuania
  • C5. Latvia

How does this look? I know it looks complex, but the reality is that this is what you are dealing with now anyway when you link between categories, but just not in a structured way.

This may look daunting, however, firstly consider it as something to put on your resume (research project team member), and secondly consider the publication possibilities without which you will not get noticed. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this points out a key difference in our approaches. You like to lay out long-term plans, while I focus on improving or creating specific articles. First, yes, we're saying the same thing about technology different ways. Second, I am only interested in the Red Army Ground Forces (actually don't think that was a term) and Soviet Army Ground Forces - maybe I should have been clearer about that earlier. I think we can put aside the Russian Federation for the moment and leave it to later; it's not within our collaberative area (the Ground Forces, my specific area, is already partially covered by the FA I wrote, Russian Ground Forces). So, considering all that, I am only worried about C1A and C2A - once those are fully written in near-complete detail, only then would I be interested in looking at the C-category ones. That does not preclude looking at G-category ones first, such as the one I'd be most interested in, the sub-G3A, Structure of the Red Army. (My publication priorities are completely elsewhere, as I cannot read Russian; the land forces of Liberia and the DR Congo). Buckshot06 (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You are researching to publish on Liberia and the DR Congo?
Yes - already have actually, with an article in the Jul/Aug 2006 New Zealand International Review [1]
Ok, I think we have a different philosophical approach. You like to focus on a single article and build it up to FA quality. I on the other hand would rather see a broad coverage of the entire category, if only with stubs, because that offers more sources of reference to prospective readers. In other words, while you "fish the whale" I "fish the sardines" ;o) Of course in time I hope to get all my "sardines" to somewhere around marlin size, but that is another story ;o)
Indeed, that's been evident for some time.
Do you have plans to learn Russian?
No. French.
It is difficult for me to understand how we can collaborate because we are working in different conceptual environments.
Name your proposed highest priority article within the area that our interests coincided, and we can both work on it.
I don't mind helping you with specific articles, but as it stands the structure of categories and existing articles does not exactly fit in with the outline of the project above as I'm sure you appreciate.
Railways are a good example. Railway use by military on both sides during the GPW was huge. It defined strategy and operational capabilities. Many people have written books on the success of blitzkrieg having never looked at the map of USSR. All panzer group operations essentially moved along the major rail lines. Where there were none running West to East, as in southern Ukraine (from Romanian border), the advance stagnated. Caucasus was approached via Kiev and Kharkov and not the shortest route along the Black Sea shore for logistic reasons. This defined the Soviet strategy during the war, and epitomised the importance of the military railway troops. In all the great strategic operations of the war the element of surprise was gained by the ability to rapidly move troops from place to place, largely by rail. And yet I find there is not even a general article on the use of railways by the military, never mind Red and Soviet Army railway troops. Etc, etc, etc. There is so much to do.
Yes, I've had a look at your sandbox article.
In any case, it is not that I am not unappreciative of your work, or others, but what has happened is that lots of editors covered the 'sexy' subjects, but the overall theme of military forces within the area broadly defines as Russia in the modern period are not coordinated and only patchy. This is the big picture view.
Now, if you can suggest how you see C1A, C2A and the sub-G3A, Structure of the Red Army being developed, please tell me. As for myself, I only see the Ground Forces of Red Army and Ground Forces of Soviet Army as two parts of a whole that commenced in 1918.
Agree totally.

The people that shaped the Red Army of GPW were all FWW/Civil War veterans. Evolution of doctrine and formations structure (or are you just interested in the OOB?) were defined by personal and not theoretical experiences. It is wrong to think that what was written by Uborevich, Tukhachevsky and others was theory. The Soviet Army was created from, and largely existed as an inheritor of very same experiential application well into the Cold War despite the 1956 realisation by the General Staff, better known as the T-55. So you tell me what you want to do, since now you know where I'm going.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Two alternatives, I think. Firstly, I think merging Formations of the Soviet Army into a broader Structure of the Red Army would be good, with maybe a 1945 onwards article on the Sov Army GF structure later. I think this covers both our interests, especially your specific requirement to describe how Red Army rifle units and formations were organised. Secondly, if you have another priority within that coinciding area, speak up.... Buckshot06 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces[edit]

Well, no. Anything from Army up formations can include Air Force and Naval units that are operationally assigned to the Army command. However, the "formations" part does not really apply to anything above a Front at best. Theatres and strategic directions really belong to the Soviet General Staff article. In reality they are parts of the Command structure.
The articles on the British, Australian and American Armies really do not deal with all three dimensions. Structure usually relates to the decision (i.e. command) functions of the forces (strategy), organisation relates to the combination of units and formations under various (strategic) Command HQs for execution of expected missions (operational level), and doctrinal explains how these combinations are used in the execution of the missions (tactics). Note that strategy may not apply only to the national military strategy, but strategy in general, like Army training strategy, or budgeting, providing direction to industry for technology development, etc.
There is a great degree of confusion from article to article because they were not coordinated. The Structure of the French Army shows the organisational OOB, but not the command and doctrinal aspects. The Structure of the British Army is largely its OOB, and those parts of the Army which relate to the administration of training, the Arms and Services Corps. It is the Land Command article that deals with the stricture of the British Army since it is there that decisions are taken on the organisation and doctrinal use of the units. I didn't see anything that would explain the doctrine which guides the organisation of the British Army except for the lone generic link to the Battlegroup (army). The United States Army is better, but also does not explain why it has the organisation that it does because the there is not mention of the operational or tactical doctrine, but only why the Army is operationally divided" into units, and what they are as sub-parts of organisational administration.
So, if you want to build up the Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces (Sukhoputniye Sily), I will help you, because it is in my own interest, but it is likely to be a very different article to the others due to it being three rather then two-dimensional. I would go to FA with that..or die trying ;o)


My proposal would be to call it simply Soviet Ground Forces. The Red Army structurally was a part of the Soviet Union after all, so it would not be that wrong.
Wasn't this Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but struktura in Russian has a defined meaning unlike its application in English. I'll explain tomorrow--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
(i)Within the article I would start with a short introduction, giving an overview of the major trials, tribulations and conflicts, followed by the the main body of the article. The main body needs to acknowledge the legacy of the Imperial Russian Army and the First World War experience that created the Soviet Union, the Civil War, and war with Poland of course. These would represent the introduction to why and how the Red Army was created. (ii) I'd suggest the article needs to have a brief historical overview of the development of the Ground Forces through its significant periods: formative (1925 - 1936), combat (1936 - 1946), transformative (1947 - 1961), consolidating (1962 - 1984), and final (1985 - 1993), and explain what happened for them to deserve these appellations (ok, not those actual words - I just used one word for what would be a sentence).
(iii) Then go to the Structure and say how decisions were taken at strategic level, including the link to the Politburo, (iv) then the section on the organisation, and how that relates to the operational art as a doctrine. (v) Finally, the OOB and how and why the Ground Forces were organised, stationed and equipped in the way that they were. (vi) Lastly, you can include a section on "Suvorov" and his views as criticisms, something other articles on Armies lack completely as if no one has ever criticises then.
How does this sound?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 09:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting your thoughts. Do you know who started and wrote most of the Land Command article? Yes, yours truely. The difficulty from a Western perspective on this is that we don't do the 'military-scientific' very well. (i) is fine, though it would not be more than three or four big paragraphs. Same with (ii). (iii) would be quite short, just outlining the chain of command mostly - one or two paragraphs. (iv) What do you mean by organisation? Rifle Corps/Rifle Div/Rifle Bde/Bn descriptions etc, same for artillery, tank forces, etc? Long section. (v) A full OOB would be several separate articles, listing ~500++ divs in midwar, plus mech/tank corps, ~300(?) odd divs in 1946-7, and 200 odd divs in 1960s-80s. What exactly do you mean? (vi) Descriptions of how/why etc would be good though, but where would you source it from?, and maybe more importantly, at what period? !930s? 1946? 1960s-89? We'd need reasonably solid English-language sources if we are both to work on this. (vii) Sure, but 'Inside the Soviet Army' mostly praised the arrangements, if I remember rightly. Be interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, sorry for the criticism, but IMHO you went the wrong way! The Land Command article repeats the OOB! Instead it should go to Ministry of Defence and higher. This is why there is nothing to link to in the Category:Commands of the British Army!
From a British Army point of view, this is incorrect. Command (military formation)s in the British Army were functional or regional organisations theoretically of a four-star status, which could contain several field armies (only actual example was the BEF in the first world war). They had field formations subordinate to them. (Depending on how big it was though, it could be as small as a Colonel's command - our NZ Army Central Command at Trentham immediately after WW2) They were not administrative, and definitely not part of the War Office or, now, Ministry of Defence. They were just the largest type of formation subordinate to it. They were often regional, such as Malaya Command or Middle East Command. This lists some [2], but others included GHQ Home Forces etc. This lists most of them at Army level (whether they were Army, Army Group, or lower, depended on the numbers and size of field formations subordinate to them.) I've been thinking to start writing on some of them, but it would be long and not very relevant.
Your characterisation of 'Command' may be correct for the USSR/Russia etc, but is not for the United Kingdom. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to explain more because its late and I don't feel like doing British research. Are you saying that the Land Command is not responsible to the Defence Council?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Chain runs - Defence Council - Army Board - CGS - Commands. (British Army, A Pocket Guide, 97/98) All Commands of the British Army report to the Chief of General Staff's staff - whether earlier called the War Office, now called MOD (Army). One could compare the CGS to a battalion commander, who in World War II would have had over 15 companies in various parts of the world. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (i) is fine, though it would not be more than three or four big paragraphs. - yes, sure
  • (ii) Same.
  • (iii) would be quite short, just outlining the chain of command mostly - one or two paragraphs. - I would be surprised if you can do it in one/two even large (3-4 sentence) paragraphs, but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
  • (iv) What do you mean by organisation? Rifle Corps/Rifle Div/Rifle Bde/Bn descriptions etc, same for artillery, tank forces, etc? Long section. - yes, organisation is organisation for combat; troop types and branches are administrative, so part of the structure
So where are the troops types and branches (often very different from the West) dealt with? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (v) A full OOB would be several separate articles, listing ~500++ divs in midwar, plus mech/tank corps, ~300(?) odd divs in 1946-7, and 200 odd divs in 1960s-80s. What exactly do you mean? - The OOB is dealt with paragraphs with Main article redirects.
  • (vi)Descriptions of how/why etc would be good though, but where would you source it from?, and maybe more importantly, at what period? !930s? 1946? 1960s-89? We'd need reasonably solid English-language sources if we are both to work on this. There are good sources, primarily Simpkin and Glantz again (his job for US Army was in Soviet doctrine, not history).
Do you mean Race to the Swift? And which Glantz books? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the late Brigadier wrote several books on the operational art, and was an expert on the Soviet doctrine bar none in terms of published material.
Glantz wrote Soviet Military Operational Art - In pursuit of deep battle which is not on his article. I would highly recommend it as it recapitulates the Simpkin research, and adds to it in a relatively slim volume. Somewhat more readable also because Simpkin wrote not only in the British style, but one from another era ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (vii) Sure, but 'Inside the Soviet Army' mostly praised the arrangements, if I remember rightly. - well, I just thought it would be something to "bounce" the rest of the content off. He wrote other books you know ;o).
I know well, his rubbish on Stalin's 'plans', but I never look at those books. As far as I'm concern Glantz's Colossus series demolishes his books on that subject very well. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel that some other-then-technical perspective needs to be included on the evaluation of the Ground Forces....maybe a Culture section? It was not a monolithic series of unit designations and troop directorates. It had a good and bad about it as a state body, as any armed forces of any nation do. I think this is lacking in the other "Structure of..." articles. You know the saying, "see the man behind the face"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's why this proposed article is Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces. It'd be great to have Personnel of the Soviet Ground Forces - dedoshchina, officers' path, soldiers, conscripts, praposhniks (sorry about my spelling) etc. (See Russian Ground Forces#Personnel) This is structure and it's dry - but it's worth writing. The human element is in other articles, not dry structural details. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose you are right. However like in all armies there were generational cultural influences that shaped the struktura and the organizatziya and the doktrina, so I wanted to reflect that. In any case, can talk about it when we get to it. I know I have seen you write some content on it somewhere already. Good night.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


This is an English article & encyclopedia; we should use English terms, and this is the correct one. Structure in English covers both administrative (arms and branches of service) and operational (divisions, brigades etc). If you want to insert a Russian article name which does or does not use a word that sounds vaguely the same, that's fine in either case. If there is a need to link it eventually to a Russian article with a different name, that's fine too. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused! Are you confirming that there is no rule which says the article must be named Structure of...? It seems to me it is precisely because "Structure in English covers both administrative (arms and branches of service) and operational (divisions, brigades etc)" that the word should not be use as a means of disambiguation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you mention disambiguation at all. What we are trying to do, I thought, is detail the specific Red/Soviet Armies details of both administrative and operational organisation - surely the word Structure is appropriate. Otherwise we would have to completely replan it, as 'Soviet Army Ground Forces' would cover, from 45-91, history, operations, organisation, personnel & training, mobilisation & war plans, and equipment, etc - not just structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, sorry, but we had an edit conflict and I had to undo your edits (not on purpose) because mine were all over the place and I had been editing for like 30 minutes.
Speaking of which, not sure why you decided to remove the section on the formation of Imperial Russian naval infantry.
Also, the Russian Navy is not the same as the Military Naval Fleet of the Russian Federation.
I'll relink it to the 1991- section further down. Well spotted. As far as I know, I didn't remove anything, rather added the intro. During edit conflicts, are you aware of the second box at the very bottom of the page which has your edits, which you can copy/paste and thus add without trouble? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes we did agree on detailing the specific Red/Soviet Armies details of both administrative and operational organisation, but Structure of refers only to the Command (administrative) part of that.
Yes, but only for Russian speakers reading in English (not our primary audience). 'Structure,' in the sense of this proposed and the other en-wiki land forces articles, refers to 'the manner of building or construction; the way in which an ediface, machine, etc is made or put together' (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon, Oxford, 1973, p.2156). You are trying to justify an article title in the English section on the basis of what the word means in Russian. For the English section, this is illogical. As I said, we can link the various sections to the appropriate, potentially differently named, parts in different Ru-wiki articles if necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
So naming the entire article in this way will only confuse because it will also be one of the names of the sections.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 05:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but this means you would call the section on struktura what? I'm perfectly happy to just name it Soviet Armed Forces, and use structure for the section dealing with it where it will be used consistently with the Russian and English meanings.
At this time I would not want to think about creating separate articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Administrative structure, with the other being operational structure. An alternative to Administrative structure would be Branches of Service. 'Branches' is an often used term for these arms and services - see Category:Branches of the United States Army. I thought we were proposing to do the Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces, so it would deal with all the branch organisations - those rifle company/battalion/regiment/brigade/division/corps and others - artillery, tank forces etc - and the formations and the operational organisation - imported, for the ground-forces appropriate section, from Formations of the Soviet Army. This is much less all-covering than Soviet Armed Forces, for which we have an article on anyway. Unfortunately, if you write 'Structure' in the English article, meaning 'strucktura,' you will have English speaking readers asking 'where's the rest of the structure' - meaning the admin organisation. 'Struktura' and 'Structure' do not mean the same thing, in this context, and are not consistent. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, do you want to start a sandbox and see how we go?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Later. Need dinner now. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, mine is almost ready, just waiting on the bread to finish baking--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, set up. It's accessible through the top of my userpage - feel free to start adding material and references. I think I need to get a copy of Colossus 1/2/3 ..Buckshot06 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't get anything yet. I'll make comments in the sanbox talk first.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 10:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we've moved our clocks back early this morning. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, just synchronising our watches ;o)
So you are going to move content over first and then do some preliminary writing/editing?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 21:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes - I am already, mostly fitting the existing text to the new article structure. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you direct me to english-language sources talking about the five periods of Ground Forces's history (eg 1947-61 transformative)? Or, if not, can you add the link to the Ru-language source/s? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've got Excel. Do you not have a spreadsheet package? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have. I was just looking at your edits with the Arms and Services and though its easier to do with a spreadsheet.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the significance of January 17, 1992 for the RF Navy. The text lists something like June or July 22, 1992. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The St Andrew's ensign was reinstated in the Fleet.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 08:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces (II)[edit]

Mrg, can you find - or even add to Wikipedia - an orbat for the Imperial Russian Army in its last days? It'd be much easier to build up the initial history of the Red Army structure if I knew which Imperial Russian forces were where. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit ahead of you here. Its almost finished, the reason for taking so long is because I have had to piece it from several sources. I will be using the 1917 version, in part from ru-Wiki because it provides the second and third wave regiments. However, as you may appreciate there is a bit of formatting to do. I will add in the next few days.
Hey, weren't you going to help me with this article? Would appreciate you adding text and references if you could, especially with the Politburo/higher command section... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought a better process would be to let you finish as much as you can edit, and then I will edit and we can work on that. Editing over each other is unproductive in terms of either clarity or system viability due to there being constant edit conflicts since we are in the same time zone. Just buzz me when you are done, although I am watching your edits. Don't be concerned about my temporary foray into religious articles. I need to get off the subject from time to time to renew my inspiration. "A man does not edit by Eastern Front alone" ;o). However, I am still gathering data off-wiki. I will also be doing an FA article for someone in England in the next few weeks, nothing big, so that may take my attention off our project very temporarily. I don't usually like doing FA from scratch, but its a good cause. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm just about done for my first wave on this. Do you want to make some edits for a few days...? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'll start tomorrow, but will probably not be able to put much substantial editing until weekend
On a related subject, it seems that our OB for the Sov invasion of Poland in 1939 on-wiki here is pretty bad. Do you have a well-sourced order of battle somewhere for the operation? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not immediately to hand, but I will have a look. It had never been of interest to me so I haven't even read the article, though I should--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I fixed up the OOB. There is also a link to a Russian (recent) work in the sources section on the campaign which has lots more information.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits Mrg. Unfortunately, in doing so, you've changed the links for most of the armies from 'Xth Army (Soviet Union)' to 'Xth Army (Union)' and thus broken most of the links. Would you mind reestablishing them? Also, your note on ranks would probably be more informative actually on the page itself, rather than on the talk page. Cheers & thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I have cleaned up the image for you and removed the photocopy marks. Next time you need an image cleaned up, there is now the Photo cleanup repair section of the new military logistics department where you list it. Woody (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

military categories[edit]

I'm not so sure that'd be an obvious win; Category:military conflict (it'd have to be lower case 'c') would certainly include Category:war, but not necessarily Category:military as such, at least in its entirity. It's not an area I'm hugely familiar with, however. The "permanent" categories don't really have a working group or centralised coordination in the way that stub types do, so you're probably best bringing it up at MILHIST, and/or the talk pages of those categories, prior to carting it off to CFR. Hope that helps somewhat. Alai (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not so flaming obvious?[edit]

The year was, in context. For the rest, see its talk page. Trekphiler (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered. Hope I'm clear. Since you appear to have the sources at hand, I'll leave you to rewrite, unless you want me to make a pass. And not that I mind, but you might just quote, next time. It makes finding & answering your points easier. (For everybody...) And saves you signing so often.... Trekphiler (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi! I noticed you made a number of changes to Prophecy and added a notice at the top saying the article is protected. It isn't, just putting a notice up doesn't protect an article, so I removed the notice. In all honesty it isn't entirely clear to me why an article with a general title of "prophecy" should discuss only the experience of prophecy as distinct from beliefs and other perspectives about it. In any event Wikipedia's consensus policy says the basic approach and content of articles is a matter for discussion with other editors. Could you do us a favor and add an entry to the article's talk page (Talk:Prophecy) explaining why you believe the article should take the "experience" approach? If you make good arguments you might be able to persuade me and the other editors. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to ask another admin to protect the page. Page protection is reserved for heavily trafficed pages that get vandalized hourly or more, this article doesn't seem to be vandalized that often. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I see, so there is no daily vandalized rate protection! sick does one have to be before seeing a doctor?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The protection policy treats it as an extradinary intervention -- more like putting someone on life support than simply seeing a doctor. Doable, but only when at the edge of death. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Operation Koltso[edit]

I've edited Operation Koltso so that it now points to Battle of Stalingrad. Hope that helps. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work Nick--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It was my fault because I moved the original WWII article without realising there was the 1991 operation, and the redirect worked in automatically. Sorry--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 10:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Prophecy II[edit]

Substituted a {{fact}} template for the statements you added that there are no sources on contemporary prophecy in the modern church. Suggest using the {{fact}} template (which becomes [citation needed]) rather than making a statement that "there are no sources". A claim that "there are no sources" is itself original research. It's a statement about the outside world (the state of current research) that people would be likely to regard as controversial. So it has to be verified! It can be challenged, and removed if it remains unsourced. The {{fact}} tag, which simply notes that no source has currently been supplied to Wikipedia, avoids this. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

defeat in the field[edit]

Do you mean like the end of the Army of Northern Virginia and the way the German Armies of World War I were saved from total defeat in the field by the civilian collapse in morale which lead to a request for an armistice? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, kind of. In this case the claim is that the Talk:Army Group Courland was never defeated in the field (see talk). I tried to point out that it had been as Army Group North, and that, confined to the peninsular s it was, it had few chances to challenge the near 0.5 million Red Army force that was blockading it, but I do not want to get into an edit war in this ridiculous suggestion that the AG was "undefeated in the field" as it surrendered on 8 May 1945. I did find one American definition from First World War, but was wondering if you may have a second definition. Strategically it was a "defeat in detail". Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 12:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We had an edit clash.

Thinking about it a little more, the French defeat in the field lead to their defeat in Vietnam, the Americans were never defeated in the field during the Vietnam War but they lost the war because of the civilian collapse in morale. Was Dien Bien Phu a siege ... --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it would have been chewed up just like Army Group Centre was if it had not surrendered immediately so as you say it is an irrelevant statement. I'll take a look. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip, I'm not the one arguing with you here. This is the case of "legendary" performance by a Latvian SS division that was never defeated...according to the Latvian Encyclopaedia. And then these people tell me that Soviet encyclopaedias are not to be trusted!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

USAF Squadron & Wing Naming Conventions[edit]

Do you really have to rename the squadrons and wings to show that they are part of the United States? It's not like there are any other countries with wing or squadron names that could somehow be confused with the American units. Those said units usually begin with "RAF" or "RAAF." Show me a few units that could be confused and i'll back down but otherwise I don't think that these units should be renamed just for the sake of it. The miitary naming conventions indicate that this probably doesn't need to be done. Kevin Rutherford 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An article named (for example) 101st Airlift Squadron is just too generic.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider everything else too generic? Kevin Rutherford 01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Waht do you mean by "everything else"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Military organization[edit]

good point, and since I'd forgotten that the Army section goes down to fire team as its smallest unit, it's probably fair enough, so I've self-reverted. David Underdown (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to expand though. For example your edit makes it obvious that the subject of the article is not well defined.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 10:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sephardim and Oriental Communities[edit]

Pretty much all the information is on the Knesset website, e.g. [3][4][5] Personally I'm not a believer in referencing stuff which is obvious and uncontroversial, but you're welcome to do so. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a hint; when you reference articles, please do so like this (i.e. showing the web page title and the site name, rather than this, which doesn't show the references properly. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

39th Rifle Division and 8th Cavalry Corps[edit]

I've got groupings of information for these two formations at Far Eastern Military District and 4th Army (Soviet Union) respectively, but I'd like to upgrade them to full articles. Can you point me toward some more sources? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Far Eastern Military District and 4th Army (Soviet Union) could use a bit of addition also.
You don't mean 39th Guards Rifle Division?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 00:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No, you'll see under 130th Machine-Gun Artillery Division, in brackets, it says 'originally 39th Rifle Division' formed before 1941. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Also I'm trying to translate this text on the 99th RD: '05.1942 Has got in an environment under Барвенковым from which send(have left) 1067 person of staff. 08 - 15.06.1942 It is deduced(removed) from structure YUF and from area Redkovskie Sand it is directed for доукомплектования in Балашов to structure of 6th Reserve Army. From 10.07.1942 It is transferred to the 8th Reserve Army. By 10.03.1943 In structure of 62nd Army (Soviet Union) has plunged on item Паньшино and it is sent in order ЮЗФ (item Two-river)'. The original text is at - can you straighten out the untranslated bits and the 'item Two-River'? Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You realise its for the 88th Guards Rifle division and not the 99th Rifle?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 01:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the page. It covers the history of the 99th RD (I Formation) and the 88th GRD, which it became after being renamed. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I got confused looking in Poirier and Conner--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 02:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
So these are the words I need translated: Барвенковым, 'send(have left) 1067 person of staff -what does that mean?, доукомплектования in Balashov, and 'has plunged on item Паньшино and it is sent in order ЮЗФ (item Two-river)'. Shouldn't be too hard. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • попала в окружение под Барвенковым, из которого вышли 1067 человек личного состава
Was surrounded at Barvenkovo (place), with only 1067 of unit personnel managing to evade capture
  • 08 - 15.06.1942 выведена из состава ЮФ и из района Редьковские Пески направлена для доукомплектования в Балашов в состав 6-й рез.А
During this period was removed from the complement of the Southern Front, and from the area of Redkovskiye Peski (place) sent for reorganisation to Balashov (place) in the dispositions of the 6th Reserve Army
  • к 10.03.1943 в составе 62-й А погрузилась на ст. Паньшино и отправлена в распоряжение ЮЗФ (ст. Двуречная)
as part of the 62nd Army were loaded on a train at station Panshino and sent to the dispositions of the Soutwestern Front (YZF) as station Dvurechnaya (literally two-rivers)
(sorry for delay, I was going to translate the whole thing but the online translation site I use is down)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 02:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I try to be careful when I'm dealing with units that became Guards at one point or another. Still for the 99th, I understand all this passage following except the reference to 'a boiler' which is how the machine translation does it - can you help?: попадает в окружение под Уманью, где большая часть дивизи погибла или попала в плен, удалось избежать окружения только части артиллерии и тылов; всего из Уманского котла вышло - около 2-х тысяч бойцов, при этом удалось сохранить знамена дивизии и полков.. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I use machine trans. to same time, but don't really need it. The site is down for the first time ever.
Boiler is actually a reference to the German kessel, cauldron in which one boils ;o)
  • The division was caught in a "boiler" encirclement at Uman, where a large part of it died or was taken prisoner. The only parts of the division to escape were the artillery and elements of the tyl (service support); in all 2,000 soldiers escaped the Uman cauldron, managing to save the standards of the division and the regiments.
I have the 39th Rifle Division, but there is not much. Poirier and Conner have it at Kursk in 1943, but I can't find confirmation for this. They also have it in Transcaucasian MD from 22 March 1946 which I don't see how. They also have it awarded Order of Kutuzov which I can't confirm. Where do you want it?
You'll see I have most of the at Far Eastern Military District#Current Order of Battle, including the note that it may have been at Kursk in '43. WHat I was looking for was Russian internet data - divisional association page, if it existed, or whatever. Can you find any of that? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I may have to go to regimental level, but not now--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 06:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

National units/Structure of the Soviet GF[edit]

Maybe, but I do not remember. I would much rather you worked on the missing sections of the 'Structure of the Soviet Ground Forces' page. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said I'm not?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 06:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I was looking at your contributions, and you seemed to be doing mostly partisans and religious things. You're doing it off-wiki? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes mostly. I find it difficult to work in sandboxes because I tend to write/translate/do course/ eat/speak to people on the phone and forget that I'm in edit and when I get back to the sandbox I'm told the session data was lost. So I have to go Back and cut and paste, etc. Its a pain since I can spend an hour looking for stuff online or in the books, so while I search for what I want I also participate in other stuff. For example the thing with dragons was most useful in learning something about tables and images.
Partisans was kind of related, but mostly its about putting things right.
Same with religion. It amuses me how much myth and ignorance there is on the subject. I became interested in comparative religions about 7 years ago, and started learning about Judaism since as a good historian I go to the sources. I wasn't brought up in a religious family so learned a lot. Most of all I don't like people making untrue or even misleading statements.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 06:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If you've got extra text off-wiki, would you please add it in (or place it in the talk page and I can work it in - whatever suits you best). I would like to take it live soon. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Its not in English yet. What's the hurry? I'm done with religious topics for a while I think, and my diversion into the AK article seems to be winding up, so I'll be back to SA now.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As you saw with the USAF wings article, I don't run sandbox articles for months and months. I write them, ready them, and place them in mainspace so that others can help as well. What I intend to do with the Structure of the SGF article is to go live with the sections that are written, and then the unwritten sections like Politburo/MOD interactions (which, actually now I think of it, may have some of its text better placed at the Sov MOD article - bit high-echelon for Ground Forces) and criticism to be added later. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, didn't realise this was your intent. I don't track what you do. I just had a look the other day t see if you were online by your history before contacting and say "USAF". I will focus on the SGF.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Hey. Sarcasm is almost extinct, as it soon being called as "personal attack" by some. Sad but true. All the best, M.K. (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed this. it seems that your content opponents are desperate. M.K. (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: deleted orphaned redirect talk pages[edit]

Hi, Mrg3105! I'm using a robot to delete these pages; 35000 deletions straight probably wouldn't be too good for my mental health. :-) Thanks for the heads-up anyway. east.718 at 12:25, April 13, 2008

First, I had a friend with access to the toolserver generate a list of all redirect talk pages for me. When I run the bot, it systematically goes through the list of pages, testing each to see whether it has no history, no incoming links, and is more than a week old. If all of these criteria are met, the page gets deleted, otherwise, nothing happens. east.718 at 12:33, April 13, 2008

Documentary Hypothesis in Elohim[edit]

First off, I didn't add that material to the article from scratch, but re-added it after someone else deleted it, because -- as I said in my edit summary -- the Documentary Hypothesis (whether you love it or hate it) has been a very strong influence on Old Testament scholarly studies for more than a century. Secondly, I personally definitely do not greatly admire Julius Wellhausen. However, that's irrelevant to the subject immediately at hand, and this is not really the place to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis. However, I will observe that although the Documentary Hypothesis in its original form is by no means universally accepted currently, most serious scholars do still accept the distinctness of the "D" source, and recognize that that the Documentary Hypothesis succeeeded in raising serious issues which will have to be dealt with in any serious philological study of certain Hebrew Bible passages... AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at this edit, you will see that a single name for lifetime is not the ancient practice in Israel. In fact many individuals in Jewish literature acquired several names, and even today there is a practice of adding a name to the seriously ill. The simple explanation, and I'm not sure why this was never considered, is that in each of the cases God played a different role, and therefore showed a different "facet" as it were, represented by that name. Had Julius Wellhausen asked Jews when he was postulating his hypothesis, he would have been undoubtedly surprised to find out that God in Hebrew has many names, some the pronunciation of which is believed to have been lost, such as the 42, 62 and 72 letter-long names. There are however 10 names that are commonly used in prayer on daily basis. In any case, I guess some academics also need to eat, and therefore publish ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for dropping by my talk page. My user page was basically copied from my page on the Simple English Wikipedia, so the definitions are 'simplified'... but I never heard the definition you provided. I'd be interested in some more detail. What brought you to my talk page? It's good to meet you, and I look forward to working with you. Thanks for your contributions to this project, feel free to stay in touch or ask for help or anything like that. User:Pedant (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That text you asked about is a quote from Jimbo Wales User:Pedant (talk) 11:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate your generous, scholarly, and thorough explanation. Over the years I've 'banned' editors from my talk page. You however have a standing invitation to drop in any time. I'm very pleased to meet you. Please clarify: the "-et", is similar to the English expression "A-Z" in the usage you describe? Let me know if I can ever be of any help to you whatsoever. User:Pedant (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)