This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
As the edit warring has continued, I've just fully protected the article for a week to allow time for dispute resolution. Nick-D ( talk) 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, I just wanted to advise that I moved your comment "This series of edits..." up into the proposal section where we're currently discussing a solution. I did this to ensure that your voice would appear/be heard as part of the relevant discussion and b/c I was concerned that we would split the discussion if detailed comments (regardless of the author's position re. blitzkrieg) appeared in both sections. I'm under the impression that it's OK for me to have moved the comments, but just want to be clear that my intentions are strictly honourable. Az x2 04:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note (and change throughout?) that the author/historian quoted as Sir Harry HINLEY is actually Sir Harry HINSLEY. 86.132.200.242 ( talk) 15:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Mark Baldwin
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Belgorod was recaptured by the Germans on 18 March, not 18 February as stated. Page is currently locked so I can't correct the typo. Davidcpearce ( talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph, change from Panzer Tank to Panzer Tank. It looks the exact same, but the link currently goes to "Panzer Tank," which redirects back to "Panzer." Brant.merrell ( talk) 16:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The following was posted on my talk page, and I'm moving it here to keep the discussion in one place. Nick-D ( talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Please can you moderate the current process for resolving the blitzkrieg dispute? I do not wish to get you involved in this but if it is possible for you to moderate this process with your non-involved administrator hat on, please kindly do so. I wouldn't have called you back if not because I'm seeing signs that show nothing has changed in Gunbirddriver's mindset. He again completely removed blitzkrieg from main content and instead moved it citation and notes section. You were right earlier, I should have taken the initiative to write the opposing view (although it would have been subpar since I have no sources for the opposing view). Well, I restored the content but with a major change: "The operation, according to some historians[j], envisioned a blitzkrieg...".
In the note [j], I first pointed out that some commentators/historians may not agree with this. That assertion still lack citations, except for Guderian's works (which would still require original synthesis in order to incorporate it as a source), and has been a major barrier to resolving this dispute for months. After that, I listed 9 historians (with supporting citations) that characterize it as an intended blitzkrieg. Essentially, the pattern I used is: Introduce, Oppose, Support. But Nick, if it is possible, can you please moderate this process. Please. EyeTruth ( talk) 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Gunbirddriver, there are two issues I want to raise regarding your last edit for blitzkrieg. One: you deleted several sources and historians that support inclusion and never tried to rectify it, even after making several other edits EyeTruth ( talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Two: the excerpt below is not true and citing entire books seems a bit odd. Actually citing entire books is fine.
We already discussed this and you even accepted that these guys were indifferent to such characterization (I could pull your exact wording if that is needed). Even Sturmvogel agreed to that. EyeTruth ( talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"These historians make no mention of blitzkrieg in their characterization of the operation". That is exactly what it is. Trying to speak for them beyond that incorporates speculation on your part. BTW, some citations for Theodor Busse, Erhard Raus, Friedrich Fangohr and Peter von der Groeben would be nice. EyeTruth ( talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have done what I believe is a balanced solution. The passsage reads: "The operation, according to some military historians, envisioned a blitzkrieg.[j] However some commentators, including many German participants, make no mention of blitzkrieg in their characterization of the operation.[k]"
Notes [j] and [k] expound with more details. EyeTruth ( talk) 06:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did reply to your suggestion by offering a counter proposal. Your suggestion is poor because it places the term Blitzkrieg right into the body of the article, as though this were explanatory and informative. It is neither. As pointed out by a number of editors well experienced in military history, the term is vague and has multiple meanings. What we want in the article is to describe the events in a manner that conveys what occured, accurately, succinctly and unambiguously. You have yet to answer my query as to why you believe it is necessary to include the term at all, as what the German plans were can be more clearly described by leaving the term out.
As to the opinion of editors, seven have come out here on this talk page to say the article is better with the term left out of the main body. Those editors are Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus, Binksternet, Azx2, Irondome and myself. Your treatement of these editors has been to brush them aside, and you refuse to recognize the validity of what they are saying. Your brow beating and inappropriate responses are essentially bullying the other editors. This is poor behavior. No editor has argued for specific inclusion of the term, other than yourself. Administrator Nick-D's proposed wording started out "Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation..." That wording would be acceptable to me. It places the disagreement in front of the reader prior to introducing the term. Your "compromise solution" places the term in the body of the article and requires the reader to find a footnote to understand why the term might be misplaced. With your version the reader is left in the dark. That is not preferred. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 02:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term Rasputitsa is not well known, even amongst amateur world war 2 historians, can we please link it to the wikipedia entry to save people from having to look it up manually? Oneliketadow ( talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm posting this with my non-involved administrator hat on. Per WP:NPOV there's a need to acknowledge significant differences of opinion among experts on topics in the relevant article. That appears to be the case here in relation to whether the German offensive was intended as a "blitzkrieg" or whether a different approach was intended. I would suggest adding a paragraph which explicitly acknowledges this. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following wording:
Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation. X, Y, and Z argue that the Germans hoped to punch through the Soviet defences using blitzkrieg tactics. However, A, B and C state that the German goals were tactical in nature, and were focused mainly on attrition. B and C explicitly state that the operation was not intended as a blitzkrieg.
Attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible, and I'm prepared to impose blocks if the current dispute continues. I'd strongly encourage a discussion of consensus wording here before it's added to the article, though I think that this process would be aided if both the involved editors took a voluntary break from the dispute over the weekend and resumed the discussion with cooler heads. Nick-D ( talk) 00:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree . I thought it would be better if we both took voluntary break from the dispute over the weekend to cool our heads, but Gunbirddriver seems to be overflowing with energy and is already working on it. EyeTruth ( talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@Gunbirddriver. I've fixed the red "cite error" you left all over the place. I had to revert to the last error-free version and work from there. Below is what I modified in the content. EyeTruth ( talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:The main section reads: The operation, according to some historians[j], envisioned a blitzkrieg...
I really think that first sentence may need some citations to back it up or may need to be further reworded. EyeTruth ( talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem discussing the controversy in the article. The question is how should the controversy be worded, which I am unsure if EyeTruth and myself could come to an agreement on, and should the discussion be placed in the body of the article, which would disrupt the narrative flow, or in a notation of some sort. Here would be my suggestion for a notation presentation:
Some issues with the proposed excerpt above are mentioned below
Weasel words: "However most commentators..."
Original synthesis: "do not characterize the planning or execution of the attack as a blitzkrieg style attack." Binksternet and I already pointed out that interpreting the meaning of the silence of several sources should be left to the reader. Any such interpretation by editors is tantamount to original synthesis, irrespective of how likely correct it may be.
EyeTruth (
talk)
02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the section where this is mentioned is titled German plans and preparation, I would prefer to leave the description of the offensive and its goals as the Germans would have described them, and would leave out after the fact descriptions which the participants would not have agreed with. That would be my preference, anyway. I would be interested to hear again from Binksternet and Sturmvogel 66. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 01:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
(I'm calling on those that have previously contributed to this discussion to kindly spare some time and drop in their thoughts on the "new proposal" outlined below. Hello: User:Binksternet, User:Someone not using his real name, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Azx2, User:Irondome, User:Hasteur). EyeTruth ( talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have done what I believe is a balanced solution. For me, this is no longer about who is wrong or who is right. Hence, I heeded the advice of WP:NPOV policy and gave both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others (including many German participants) simply make no mention of the term in their description. It is simple with no extra interpretation for either side of the argument. It is best to avoid original synthesis and let readers make up their own mind. Also I kept it as brief as possible so as not to disrupt the flow of the text CHECK IT OUT.
But Gunbirddriver disagrees with it. He still believes that presenting one point of view in the main content of the article is feasible. However, we have both been advised by an admin (Nick-D) that "attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible" and he suggested adding a paragraph which explicitly acknowledges the different views (I used only a fraction of a paragraph). Gunbirddriver also argued that it is our place to interpret the meaning of the silence of several sources that do not mention the term. He explained that "their silence speaks volumes". I asked him "who will decide what 'volumes' their silence speak?" (See section Further discussion of blitzkrieg for the full statements). HERE is the version Gunbirddriver prefers. And THIS is the difference between the two versions being compared. Well, he was blocked for 24 hours after reverting it without stating a justifying cause. Gunirddriver has his good reasons for his position but I've come to realize that working towards a solution that satisfies the core Wikipedia policies, and not our personal reasons, is the only way forward. EyeTruth ( talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The notes and references for the above excerpt
|
---|
|
This series of edits by EyeTruth looks like a good solution to the problem of how to present the various opinions. I think this is better than the synthesis of trying to form a conclusion taken from various authors' silence on the issue of Kursk-as-blitzkrieg. Binksternet ( talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I will like to add that "User:Someone not using his real name" stated on his talkpage that he has nothing more to add besides what he already said in the DRN case. That still leaves it at 7 editors that have voiced their support for a due weight to be given to each side of the argument. EyeTruth ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Curious that you claim I am silent, when you are editing your previous comments after I have made a reply. A sort of studied thickness. Let me place my comment here directly below your most recent comment so that you cannot miss it. Your suggestion is poor because it places the term Blitzkrieg right into the body of the article, as though this were explanatory and informative. It is neither. As pointed out by a number of editors well experienced in military history, the term is vague and has multiple meanings. Among those who have commented on the vagueness and common misunderstanding of the term is the editor EyeTruth, convincingly making the case against his own position. What we want in the article is to describe the events in a manner that conveys what occured accurately, succinctly and unambiguously. EyeTruth has yet to answer my query as to why he believes it is so necessary to include the term at all, as what the German plans were can be more clearly described by leaving the term out. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
As to the opinion of other editors, seven have come out here on this talk page to say the article is better with the term left out of the main body. Those editors are Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus, Binksternet, Azx2, Irondome and myself. Your treatement of these editors has been to brush them aside, and you refuse to recognize the validity of what they are saying. Several have been willing to accept a compromise position with some of your wording, but these are consessions, not frank support. Your brow beating and inappropriate responses are essentially bullying the other editors. This is poor behavior. No editor has argued for specific inclusion of the term, other than yourself. Administrator Nick-D's proposed wording started out "Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation..." That wording would be acceptable to me. It places the disagreement in front of the reader prior to introducing the term. Your "compromise solution" places the term in the body of the article and requires the reader to find a footnote to understand why the term might be misplaced. With your version the reader is left in the dark. That is not preferred. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Azx2, you once mentioned that you didn't know what the notes had. I've put them up, (open the collapsible). EyeTruth ( talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Excerpts of the what some editors had to say about resolving the dispute are as follows:
|
---|
Binksternet stated: "I think the German intention to engage in lightning battle (blitzkrieg) should be briefly described as wishful thinking. The actual battle should be described as a deadly slugfest, whatever is the opposite of blitzkrieg, because of the expert Soviet defense-in-depth. Near the end of the article we can say that Kursk was the death of the blitzkrieg concept." (See the DRN) Someone not using his real name stated: "I thinks this is a classic example of commentary that needs attribution. "According to X, it was supposed to be a blitzkrieg, but according to Y it was ..." I agree with Sturmvogel that the contrast may not be terribly well defined because not all authors use blitzkrieg to mean the same thing. But at least it gives the reader some idea what is going on. Otherwise it's unclear if the "death of Blitzkrieg", which is the label given several by several authors to this battle, refers to a failed attempt at Blitzkrieg or to a change in German thinking before the battle." (See the DRN)
Then after the DRN, Sturmvogel 66 stated: "While I don't agree that it was a blitzkrieg in any way, the consensus, such as it was with the editors who did comment [in the DRN case], would seem to be to call it a failed blitzkrieg. But I'd suggest adding in a note that many historians do not agree with that assessment and fail to characterize it as such." (See this talkpage). |
That no other editors are explicitly advocating for the inclusion of the term "blitzkrieg" in the main body of the article text? Are the other editors who will tolerate a main-body mention of blitzkrieg just doing so out of a desire to compromise and avoid conflict (noble aims, mind you)? Because if that's the case (although we should be very clear and explicit here in acknowledging each editor's position), and Eyetruth is the only editor who wants the term mentioned in the main body of the article, then perhaps the compromise is more his to make and the reference to blitzkrieg should be in the note, and not inline (unless Nick-D's "disagreement"-text was approved). All along I've been operating under the belief that there was an already-established consensus b/w multiple editors who wanted the term included in the article in-line (as opposed to just wanting to resolve the editing conflict b/w ET and GBD), but it sounds like that might not be correct? Would someone clarify this for me, please? Thanks. Az x2 20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If we are to take a vote, we should leave the voting open at least until September 7th. There is no rush to reach a conclusion. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 03:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
See the section below for the poll. (This section was collapsed on Irondome's approval) |
---|
I suggest we leave the voting space open for 7 days, to close on 3rd Sept, 04.32 London time. Votes and arguments below. A majority consensus shall be our final word on this. Cheers! Irondome ( talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Section will be collapsed to keep editors from getting confused over which vote is which. This action has been approved by Irondome [1]. EyeTruth ( talk) 01:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
As the edit warring has continued, I've just fully protected the article for a week to allow time for dispute resolution. Nick-D ( talk) 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet, I just wanted to advise that I moved your comment "This series of edits..." up into the proposal section where we're currently discussing a solution. I did this to ensure that your voice would appear/be heard as part of the relevant discussion and b/c I was concerned that we would split the discussion if detailed comments (regardless of the author's position re. blitzkrieg) appeared in both sections. I'm under the impression that it's OK for me to have moved the comments, but just want to be clear that my intentions are strictly honourable. Az x2 04:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note (and change throughout?) that the author/historian quoted as Sir Harry HINLEY is actually Sir Harry HINSLEY. 86.132.200.242 ( talk) 15:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Mark Baldwin
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Belgorod was recaptured by the Germans on 18 March, not 18 February as stated. Page is currently locked so I can't correct the typo. Davidcpearce ( talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the second paragraph, change from Panzer Tank to Panzer Tank. It looks the exact same, but the link currently goes to "Panzer Tank," which redirects back to "Panzer." Brant.merrell ( talk) 16:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The following was posted on my talk page, and I'm moving it here to keep the discussion in one place. Nick-D ( talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Please can you moderate the current process for resolving the blitzkrieg dispute? I do not wish to get you involved in this but if it is possible for you to moderate this process with your non-involved administrator hat on, please kindly do so. I wouldn't have called you back if not because I'm seeing signs that show nothing has changed in Gunbirddriver's mindset. He again completely removed blitzkrieg from main content and instead moved it citation and notes section. You were right earlier, I should have taken the initiative to write the opposing view (although it would have been subpar since I have no sources for the opposing view). Well, I restored the content but with a major change: "The operation, according to some historians[j], envisioned a blitzkrieg...".
In the note [j], I first pointed out that some commentators/historians may not agree with this. That assertion still lack citations, except for Guderian's works (which would still require original synthesis in order to incorporate it as a source), and has been a major barrier to resolving this dispute for months. After that, I listed 9 historians (with supporting citations) that characterize it as an intended blitzkrieg. Essentially, the pattern I used is: Introduce, Oppose, Support. But Nick, if it is possible, can you please moderate this process. Please. EyeTruth ( talk) 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Gunbirddriver, there are two issues I want to raise regarding your last edit for blitzkrieg. One: you deleted several sources and historians that support inclusion and never tried to rectify it, even after making several other edits EyeTruth ( talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Two: the excerpt below is not true and citing entire books seems a bit odd. Actually citing entire books is fine.
We already discussed this and you even accepted that these guys were indifferent to such characterization (I could pull your exact wording if that is needed). Even Sturmvogel agreed to that. EyeTruth ( talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"These historians make no mention of blitzkrieg in their characterization of the operation". That is exactly what it is. Trying to speak for them beyond that incorporates speculation on your part. BTW, some citations for Theodor Busse, Erhard Raus, Friedrich Fangohr and Peter von der Groeben would be nice. EyeTruth ( talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have done what I believe is a balanced solution. The passsage reads: "The operation, according to some military historians, envisioned a blitzkrieg.[j] However some commentators, including many German participants, make no mention of blitzkrieg in their characterization of the operation.[k]"
Notes [j] and [k] expound with more details. EyeTruth ( talk) 06:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did reply to your suggestion by offering a counter proposal. Your suggestion is poor because it places the term Blitzkrieg right into the body of the article, as though this were explanatory and informative. It is neither. As pointed out by a number of editors well experienced in military history, the term is vague and has multiple meanings. What we want in the article is to describe the events in a manner that conveys what occured, accurately, succinctly and unambiguously. You have yet to answer my query as to why you believe it is necessary to include the term at all, as what the German plans were can be more clearly described by leaving the term out.
As to the opinion of editors, seven have come out here on this talk page to say the article is better with the term left out of the main body. Those editors are Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus, Binksternet, Azx2, Irondome and myself. Your treatement of these editors has been to brush them aside, and you refuse to recognize the validity of what they are saying. Your brow beating and inappropriate responses are essentially bullying the other editors. This is poor behavior. No editor has argued for specific inclusion of the term, other than yourself. Administrator Nick-D's proposed wording started out "Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation..." That wording would be acceptable to me. It places the disagreement in front of the reader prior to introducing the term. Your "compromise solution" places the term in the body of the article and requires the reader to find a footnote to understand why the term might be misplaced. With your version the reader is left in the dark. That is not preferred. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 02:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The term Rasputitsa is not well known, even amongst amateur world war 2 historians, can we please link it to the wikipedia entry to save people from having to look it up manually? Oneliketadow ( talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm posting this with my non-involved administrator hat on. Per WP:NPOV there's a need to acknowledge significant differences of opinion among experts on topics in the relevant article. That appears to be the case here in relation to whether the German offensive was intended as a "blitzkrieg" or whether a different approach was intended. I would suggest adding a paragraph which explicitly acknowledges this. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following wording:
Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation. X, Y, and Z argue that the Germans hoped to punch through the Soviet defences using blitzkrieg tactics. However, A, B and C state that the German goals were tactical in nature, and were focused mainly on attrition. B and C explicitly state that the operation was not intended as a blitzkrieg.
Attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible, and I'm prepared to impose blocks if the current dispute continues. I'd strongly encourage a discussion of consensus wording here before it's added to the article, though I think that this process would be aided if both the involved editors took a voluntary break from the dispute over the weekend and resumed the discussion with cooler heads. Nick-D ( talk) 00:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree . I thought it would be better if we both took voluntary break from the dispute over the weekend to cool our heads, but Gunbirddriver seems to be overflowing with energy and is already working on it. EyeTruth ( talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@Gunbirddriver. I've fixed the red "cite error" you left all over the place. I had to revert to the last error-free version and work from there. Below is what I modified in the content. EyeTruth ( talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
:The main section reads: The operation, according to some historians[j], envisioned a blitzkrieg...
I really think that first sentence may need some citations to back it up or may need to be further reworded. EyeTruth ( talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem discussing the controversy in the article. The question is how should the controversy be worded, which I am unsure if EyeTruth and myself could come to an agreement on, and should the discussion be placed in the body of the article, which would disrupt the narrative flow, or in a notation of some sort. Here would be my suggestion for a notation presentation:
Some issues with the proposed excerpt above are mentioned below
Weasel words: "However most commentators..."
Original synthesis: "do not characterize the planning or execution of the attack as a blitzkrieg style attack." Binksternet and I already pointed out that interpreting the meaning of the silence of several sources should be left to the reader. Any such interpretation by editors is tantamount to original synthesis, irrespective of how likely correct it may be.
EyeTruth (
talk)
02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Since the section where this is mentioned is titled German plans and preparation, I would prefer to leave the description of the offensive and its goals as the Germans would have described them, and would leave out after the fact descriptions which the participants would not have agreed with. That would be my preference, anyway. I would be interested to hear again from Binksternet and Sturmvogel 66. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 01:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
(I'm calling on those that have previously contributed to this discussion to kindly spare some time and drop in their thoughts on the "new proposal" outlined below. Hello: User:Binksternet, User:Someone not using his real name, User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Azx2, User:Irondome, User:Hasteur). EyeTruth ( talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I have done what I believe is a balanced solution. For me, this is no longer about who is wrong or who is right. Hence, I heeded the advice of WP:NPOV policy and gave both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others (including many German participants) simply make no mention of the term in their description. It is simple with no extra interpretation for either side of the argument. It is best to avoid original synthesis and let readers make up their own mind. Also I kept it as brief as possible so as not to disrupt the flow of the text CHECK IT OUT.
But Gunbirddriver disagrees with it. He still believes that presenting one point of view in the main content of the article is feasible. However, we have both been advised by an admin (Nick-D) that "attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible" and he suggested adding a paragraph which explicitly acknowledges the different views (I used only a fraction of a paragraph). Gunbirddriver also argued that it is our place to interpret the meaning of the silence of several sources that do not mention the term. He explained that "their silence speaks volumes". I asked him "who will decide what 'volumes' their silence speak?" (See section Further discussion of blitzkrieg for the full statements). HERE is the version Gunbirddriver prefers. And THIS is the difference between the two versions being compared. Well, he was blocked for 24 hours after reverting it without stating a justifying cause. Gunirddriver has his good reasons for his position but I've come to realize that working towards a solution that satisfies the core Wikipedia policies, and not our personal reasons, is the only way forward. EyeTruth ( talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The notes and references for the above excerpt
|
---|
|
This series of edits by EyeTruth looks like a good solution to the problem of how to present the various opinions. I think this is better than the synthesis of trying to form a conclusion taken from various authors' silence on the issue of Kursk-as-blitzkrieg. Binksternet ( talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I will like to add that "User:Someone not using his real name" stated on his talkpage that he has nothing more to add besides what he already said in the DRN case. That still leaves it at 7 editors that have voiced their support for a due weight to be given to each side of the argument. EyeTruth ( talk) 13:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Curious that you claim I am silent, when you are editing your previous comments after I have made a reply. A sort of studied thickness. Let me place my comment here directly below your most recent comment so that you cannot miss it. Your suggestion is poor because it places the term Blitzkrieg right into the body of the article, as though this were explanatory and informative. It is neither. As pointed out by a number of editors well experienced in military history, the term is vague and has multiple meanings. Among those who have commented on the vagueness and common misunderstanding of the term is the editor EyeTruth, convincingly making the case against his own position. What we want in the article is to describe the events in a manner that conveys what occured accurately, succinctly and unambiguously. EyeTruth has yet to answer my query as to why he believes it is so necessary to include the term at all, as what the German plans were can be more clearly described by leaving the term out. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
As to the opinion of other editors, seven have come out here on this talk page to say the article is better with the term left out of the main body. Those editors are Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus, Binksternet, Azx2, Irondome and myself. Your treatement of these editors has been to brush them aside, and you refuse to recognize the validity of what they are saying. Several have been willing to accept a compromise position with some of your wording, but these are consessions, not frank support. Your brow beating and inappropriate responses are essentially bullying the other editors. This is poor behavior. No editor has argued for specific inclusion of the term, other than yourself. Administrator Nick-D's proposed wording started out "Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation..." That wording would be acceptable to me. It places the disagreement in front of the reader prior to introducing the term. Your "compromise solution" places the term in the body of the article and requires the reader to find a footnote to understand why the term might be misplaced. With your version the reader is left in the dark. That is not preferred. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Azx2, you once mentioned that you didn't know what the notes had. I've put them up, (open the collapsible). EyeTruth ( talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Excerpts of the what some editors had to say about resolving the dispute are as follows:
|
---|
Binksternet stated: "I think the German intention to engage in lightning battle (blitzkrieg) should be briefly described as wishful thinking. The actual battle should be described as a deadly slugfest, whatever is the opposite of blitzkrieg, because of the expert Soviet defense-in-depth. Near the end of the article we can say that Kursk was the death of the blitzkrieg concept." (See the DRN) Someone not using his real name stated: "I thinks this is a classic example of commentary that needs attribution. "According to X, it was supposed to be a blitzkrieg, but according to Y it was ..." I agree with Sturmvogel that the contrast may not be terribly well defined because not all authors use blitzkrieg to mean the same thing. But at least it gives the reader some idea what is going on. Otherwise it's unclear if the "death of Blitzkrieg", which is the label given several by several authors to this battle, refers to a failed attempt at Blitzkrieg or to a change in German thinking before the battle." (See the DRN)
Then after the DRN, Sturmvogel 66 stated: "While I don't agree that it was a blitzkrieg in any way, the consensus, such as it was with the editors who did comment [in the DRN case], would seem to be to call it a failed blitzkrieg. But I'd suggest adding in a note that many historians do not agree with that assessment and fail to characterize it as such." (See this talkpage). |
That no other editors are explicitly advocating for the inclusion of the term "blitzkrieg" in the main body of the article text? Are the other editors who will tolerate a main-body mention of blitzkrieg just doing so out of a desire to compromise and avoid conflict (noble aims, mind you)? Because if that's the case (although we should be very clear and explicit here in acknowledging each editor's position), and Eyetruth is the only editor who wants the term mentioned in the main body of the article, then perhaps the compromise is more his to make and the reference to blitzkrieg should be in the note, and not inline (unless Nick-D's "disagreement"-text was approved). All along I've been operating under the belief that there was an already-established consensus b/w multiple editors who wanted the term included in the article in-line (as opposed to just wanting to resolve the editing conflict b/w ET and GBD), but it sounds like that might not be correct? Would someone clarify this for me, please? Thanks. Az x2 20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
If we are to take a vote, we should leave the voting open at least until September 7th. There is no rush to reach a conclusion. Gunbirddriver ( talk) 03:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
See the section below for the poll. (This section was collapsed on Irondome's approval) |
---|
I suggest we leave the voting space open for 7 days, to close on 3rd Sept, 04.32 London time. Votes and arguments below. A majority consensus shall be our final word on this. Cheers! Irondome ( talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Section will be collapsed to keep editors from getting confused over which vote is which. This action has been approved by Irondome [1]. EyeTruth ( talk) 01:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |