![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This is not the American elections, but a Wikipedia discussion. Ideas are preferred to votes —Preceding unsigned comment added by mrg3105 ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 6 October 2008
Mrg3105's proposal is unmanageable in its present form as some of the proposed moves are controversial; others not. For clarity and convenience, I have divided the list into four groups, as follows:
Each group has its own sub-heading below, containing a list of the applicable articles. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mrg3105, are we going to go through battle naming all again? Personally I'd be willing to meet you half-way and where operations are truly offensive operations, then we can have "xyz Offensive." But, really, English WP does not exist solely to preserve Soviet terminology. I rather doubt there's anything the Soviets labelled as "Tactical" anything. Or, put another way, if everything is "Strategic," then nothing is. — PētersV ( talk) 05:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please dont revert my sources.
1) German losses are still not in this world. German Krivosheev dont exist.
2) I write "According to soviet data" and not "the Germans lost"
3) This is soviet sources and it was also soviet-german war.
4) We must believe soviet sources because german sources dont exist.
5) We can use soviet sources for german losses, because we use also amercican sources for Normandie or soviet for 90.000 prisoners in Stalingrad or soviet for 150.000 prisoners in Bagration. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
(The prisoners info is normally provided by the party taking them. The rest of the casualties are counted by the army suffering them.)
Is it your idea ? Or is it the rule in wikipedia ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
1) This is wrong. It is true for Western front, but not for Eastern front. Find me german losses for Baltic Offensive please.
2) But it is so. Germans are guilty, because they ignore Eastern front even today.
3) Not only totalitarian states do that. I believe soviet sources because they are not incredible and german losses grow and grow. German have lyied about their losses and about soviet losses. Soviets lyied about their losses but not about german losses.
For battle of Kiev we use german sources 665.000 prisoners. Soviet Union has won this war and we must use theor losses. We use also american and british sources. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 14:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please dont do that. I know about this war a lot of infos and I know what I say. Fact is:
german sources lye. it was already PROOVED. For example Overmans.
soviet informations CAN LYE, but is was NOT PROOVED. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It were 3.500.000 dead Germans. Then 4.000.000 and now 5.300.000. I dont know it exatly but I think it were 5.000.000 - 7.000.000 dead german soldiers aganinst Red Army. (russian sources). --
Igor Piryazev (
talk) 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If this propaganda is kept here, should it be mentioned that modern Baltic states de facto present themselves as German allies? Just to complete the whole picture? Or should this part be just deleted from the article? 95.55.124.88 ( talk) 10:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm always wondering about the sick soldiers in soviet union. Why are they even counted, they are sick so they are not able to fight.
The weapons leave only 2 options, wounded or killed, there are not weapon that cause sickness, gas was not used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.133.241.127 ( talk) 11:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
109.133.241.127 ( talk) 11:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This is not the American elections, but a Wikipedia discussion. Ideas are preferred to votes —Preceding unsigned comment added by mrg3105 ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 6 October 2008
Mrg3105's proposal is unmanageable in its present form as some of the proposed moves are controversial; others not. For clarity and convenience, I have divided the list into four groups, as follows:
Each group has its own sub-heading below, containing a list of the applicable articles. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 06:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mrg3105, are we going to go through battle naming all again? Personally I'd be willing to meet you half-way and where operations are truly offensive operations, then we can have "xyz Offensive." But, really, English WP does not exist solely to preserve Soviet terminology. I rather doubt there's anything the Soviets labelled as "Tactical" anything. Or, put another way, if everything is "Strategic," then nothing is. — PētersV ( talk) 05:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Please dont revert my sources.
1) German losses are still not in this world. German Krivosheev dont exist.
2) I write "According to soviet data" and not "the Germans lost"
3) This is soviet sources and it was also soviet-german war.
4) We must believe soviet sources because german sources dont exist.
5) We can use soviet sources for german losses, because we use also amercican sources for Normandie or soviet for 90.000 prisoners in Stalingrad or soviet for 150.000 prisoners in Bagration. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 13:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
(The prisoners info is normally provided by the party taking them. The rest of the casualties are counted by the army suffering them.)
Is it your idea ? Or is it the rule in wikipedia ? -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
1) This is wrong. It is true for Western front, but not for Eastern front. Find me german losses for Baltic Offensive please.
2) But it is so. Germans are guilty, because they ignore Eastern front even today.
3) Not only totalitarian states do that. I believe soviet sources because they are not incredible and german losses grow and grow. German have lyied about their losses and about soviet losses. Soviets lyied about their losses but not about german losses.
For battle of Kiev we use german sources 665.000 prisoners. Soviet Union has won this war and we must use theor losses. We use also american and british sources. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 14:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please dont do that. I know about this war a lot of infos and I know what I say. Fact is:
german sources lye. it was already PROOVED. For example Overmans.
soviet informations CAN LYE, but is was NOT PROOVED. -- Igor Piryazev ( talk) 19:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It were 3.500.000 dead Germans. Then 4.000.000 and now 5.300.000. I dont know it exatly but I think it were 5.000.000 - 7.000.000 dead german soldiers aganinst Red Army. (russian sources). --
Igor Piryazev (
talk) 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If this propaganda is kept here, should it be mentioned that modern Baltic states de facto present themselves as German allies? Just to complete the whole picture? Or should this part be just deleted from the article? 95.55.124.88 ( talk) 10:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm always wondering about the sick soldiers in soviet union. Why are they even counted, they are sick so they are not able to fight.
The weapons leave only 2 options, wounded or killed, there are not weapon that cause sickness, gas was not used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.133.241.127 ( talk) 11:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
109.133.241.127 ( talk) 11:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)