This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Third Battle of Kharkov article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Third Battle of Kharkov is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference to number USSR Divisions is misleading and should be deleted.
A full strength WW2 German-USA-UK division was approx. 20000.
USSR divisions were smaller, and the USSR did not lose anywhere near 52 divisions worth of troops by other armies' standards in the operation.
Best to give USSR casualty numbers without mentioning the term "division".
````NCDane —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
NCDane (
talk •
contribs) 04:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This is my first GA Review in a while, so please bear with me! Here are my comments:
1. (a) Well written: Excellent, apart from a few bits and bobs:
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.: Pass!
2 Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout: Pass (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; Nearly there, a few comments:
(c) it contains no original research: Pass!
3 Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic: Pass! (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail: Pass!
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias: Pass!
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Pass!
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Two Image problems:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pass!
So, look at the images, look at some of the prose, and then I think this can be passed! Skinny87 ( talk) 19:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Good article, but the narithmetic confuses me. It is said that SS Panzer Corps had a strength of 20,000 and near the end casualty figures are given. It is said that SSPanzer Corps lost 44% of it's strength. That is about 8,800, but the toitals for officers and elisted men onloy add up to about 3500. What about the other 5300? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 05:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
... that the 1943 German Donbas Operations led to the destruction of 52 Soviet divisions, and the recapture of the cities of Kharkov and Belgorod from the Red Army? added to this page by —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 15:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Totenkopf-Kursk-01.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
From the text: "The German Donets Campaign cost the Red Army fifty-two divisions,[85] including around 70,000–80,000 personnel losses. Of these troops lost, an estimated 45,200 were killed or went missing, while another 41,200 were wounded." Adding estimated KIA/MIA and wounded troops yields over 86,000 -- should the first sentence be changed to read "...including around 80,000-90,000 personnel losses."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.97.116 ( talk) 10:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
2 minor criticisms - the 70,000-80,000 immediately above - it's jarring when things don't add up like that. And the use of the word "hassled" seems much too informal in this context. "Distracted" might not be the right term, but I think it would be better
1 major criticism in lede "on 25 February expanded its offensive against both Army Group South and Army Group Center. However, months of continuous operations had taken a heavy toll on the Soviets and some divisions were reduced to 1,000–1,500 combat effectives. On 19 February," This looks like reverse chronological order. I'm sure if I tried harder I could figure out what's happening and why it's put in reverse order (or maybe it should be January 25?) - but I don't think the reader should have to work so hard. Smallbones ( talk) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The intro says "Kharkov (Kharkiv)" without explanation. I find this weird. The link shows the city is currently called "Kharkiv" but the word "Kharkov" is in a couple of places there also. In order to clarify, it'd be nice if it said "Kharkov (later Kharkiv)" or "Kharkov (also Kharkiv)". Does anyone know whence came name #2? Tempshill ( talk) 01:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG is tagged for deletion at the Commons with a note saying it's presumably PD in the US but isn't in Germany, and the photo should be moved to en in preparation for moving to the front page. Is it true this photo is considered PD in the US? Were Nazi records like this placed in the public domain somehow when they were taken by the US military? Tempshill ( talk) 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
According to our article on Division (military), a division is 10,000-30,000 men. This article is dealing with the death/capture of far fewer than the minimum of 520,000. Is the mistake there or here, or in my reading of it? -- Dweller ( talk) 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Third Battle of Kharkov#Aftermath: "Following the German success at Kharkov, Hitler was presented with two options."
This is a minor point, but perhaps worth raising. Did someone (a general, an advisor, the General Staff?) present to Hitler these two options during an actual meeting or communication or does the sentence just use the passive voice to convey that Hitler had two options. If it's the former, does the source indicate who did it? A very informative article, by the way, and a pleasure to read. Thank you, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
70.000 seems to be to low. Woronesch-Charkow-Offensive (13.01.1943 - 03.03.1943) = 153.000 casualties + Charkow-Defensive (04.03.1943 - 25.03.1943) 86.469 . numbers from krivosheev. the battle box says 19 Feb - 15 March so the casualties MUST be higher. i change to 80-90.000 -- HROThomas ( talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Am surprised to see this term not used anywhere, this was the term von Manstien used for these battles and the overall offensive was it not?
Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 ( talk) 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of work to remain a FA. Per WP:FACR a FA must be:
1.
2. It follows the style guidelines: No problems here.
3. Media. No Problems with licensing, but the lack of any map or maps of the battle is making it difficult to follow.
4.Length. No major issues here.
I intend to put this article for
WP:FAR in the next couple of weeks, but hope we can get as many issues resolved as possible before that.
D2306 (
talk) 23:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree. No offence to those that did well to get it to FA in the first place, but the above does challange FA status. May I also add the complete lack of discussion on the massive air battles that took place. I could help should anyone choose to revamp this article. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"Between 13 January and 3 April 1943, an estimated 500,000 Red Army soldiers took part in what was known as the Voronezh–Kharkov Offensive.[1] In all, an estimated 6,100,000 Soviet soldiers were committed to the area, with another 659,000 out of action with wounds. In comparison, the Germans could account for 2,200,000 personnel on the Eastern Front, with another 100,000 deployed in Norway."
in short: all the numbers in this sentence seem arbitrary and wrong. Can someone check them and correct them? If not I will remove the sentence in question. noclador ( talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
But same principle is valid for Red Army they also have gross number of soldiers and than nett number which represent only combat troops.....so why purposely put "Gross" soviet numbers and compare it to "Nett" German one? Creation of mith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.149.131 ( talk) 10:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
70,000 Russian soldiers? 11,500 casualties? Something is definitely wrong here... -- Paracel63 ( talk) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah..ok! 70,000 Axis soldiers??? Only 2nd SS Corp with 3 full panzergrenadire division had near that number.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.149.131 ( talk) 10:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
In the article on Paul Hausser it states that he defied Hitler's order to evacuate the city, in the article on the battle however it sounds like he disobeyed Manstein's order not to attack the city directly (but to encircle it). Historian932 ( talk) 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
So, are we calling it Kharkov or Kharkiv? The latter may be its official name today, but at the time I think it was known to both sides as Kharkov (Russian: Харьков; German phonetic spelling: Charkow). Sca ( talk) 16:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response.... I had some computer problems... It seems that I incorrectly interpreted Wikipedia rules and I am sorry for doing that. Although the article did not follow Wiki standards before my edits also. Thanks for these edits; because of them the Battle of Kharkov articles are finally correct (on the "Kharkov Vs. Kharkiv" issue at least). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This always struck me as odd, and I suspect it's historically inaccurate.
The first time I encountered this was in Irving's HItler's War and I see it's repeated in this article's cite to a separate work.
I think Irving is confusing the fact that Popov's tanks got to within 20 miles of the Donetz in mid-February, not 20 miles to Manstein.
Moscow to Stalingrad Decision in the East mentions the former but nothing about the latter.
Furthermore, the Lage Ost situation maps for February and March 1943 show no Soviet formations within 80 miles of Manstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.14.31 ( talk) 20:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just read this page and found it to be interesting, according to the truth (such as I've read and watched TV-documentaries about) and NPOV, etc. And I have not contributed one single byte to its contence myself. But I think this article by the very least should get the green "good page". Perhaps even feutered, but I would very much like to nominate this page as "good" - but how do I progress from here ? I've never nominated any page before. Boeing720 ( talk) 06:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Per the above (Article need major work to stay FA), I will edit the article to address some of the concerns around use of Manstein's Lost Victories
Quoting from D2306:
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that this has been discussed several times before. Does anybody have access to the source and can verify what it says? 52 divisions is about half of what Army Group Center lost in the summer of 1944, so it conjures an image of a catastrophe, rather than a tactical failure from an overextended Red Army at the tail end of a long, bruising Stalingrad campaign.
In Wehrmacht Retreats, Citino mentions one army destroyed and two more badly mauled. In Glantz & House When Titans clashed, a Soviet "army" at the end of 1942 is described as having half a dozen divisions. So it's about 18 (in my calculations). The number of casualties also do not amount to a "catastrophe" (by Eastern Front standards).
Unless this source can be double checked (i.e. what time it covers, etc), I suggest removing his reference from the article. Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Third Battle of Kharkov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Third Battle of Kharkov article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Third Battle of Kharkov is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference to number USSR Divisions is misleading and should be deleted.
A full strength WW2 German-USA-UK division was approx. 20000.
USSR divisions were smaller, and the USSR did not lose anywhere near 52 divisions worth of troops by other armies' standards in the operation.
Best to give USSR casualty numbers without mentioning the term "division".
````NCDane —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
NCDane (
talk •
contribs) 04:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
This is my first GA Review in a while, so please bear with me! Here are my comments:
1. (a) Well written: Excellent, apart from a few bits and bobs:
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.: Pass!
2 Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout: Pass (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; Nearly there, a few comments:
(c) it contains no original research: Pass!
3 Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic: Pass! (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail: Pass!
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias: Pass!
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Pass!
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: Two Image problems:
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pass!
So, look at the images, look at some of the prose, and then I think this can be passed! Skinny87 ( talk) 19:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Good article, but the narithmetic confuses me. It is said that SS Panzer Corps had a strength of 20,000 and near the end casualty figures are given. It is said that SSPanzer Corps lost 44% of it's strength. That is about 8,800, but the toitals for officers and elisted men onloy add up to about 3500. What about the other 5300? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.138 ( talk) 05:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
... that the 1943 German Donbas Operations led to the destruction of 52 Soviet divisions, and the recapture of the cities of Kharkov and Belgorod from the Red Army? added to this page by —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 15:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Totenkopf-Kursk-01.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
From the text: "The German Donets Campaign cost the Red Army fifty-two divisions,[85] including around 70,000–80,000 personnel losses. Of these troops lost, an estimated 45,200 were killed or went missing, while another 41,200 were wounded." Adding estimated KIA/MIA and wounded troops yields over 86,000 -- should the first sentence be changed to read "...including around 80,000-90,000 personnel losses."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.97.116 ( talk) 10:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
2 minor criticisms - the 70,000-80,000 immediately above - it's jarring when things don't add up like that. And the use of the word "hassled" seems much too informal in this context. "Distracted" might not be the right term, but I think it would be better
1 major criticism in lede "on 25 February expanded its offensive against both Army Group South and Army Group Center. However, months of continuous operations had taken a heavy toll on the Soviets and some divisions were reduced to 1,000–1,500 combat effectives. On 19 February," This looks like reverse chronological order. I'm sure if I tried harder I could figure out what's happening and why it's put in reverse order (or maybe it should be January 25?) - but I don't think the reader should have to work so hard. Smallbones ( talk) 22:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The intro says "Kharkov (Kharkiv)" without explanation. I find this weird. The link shows the city is currently called "Kharkiv" but the word "Kharkov" is in a couple of places there also. In order to clarify, it'd be nice if it said "Kharkov (later Kharkiv)" or "Kharkov (also Kharkiv)". Does anyone know whence came name #2? Tempshill ( talk) 01:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
File:Ger Inf Russia 1941 HDSN9902655.JPEG is tagged for deletion at the Commons with a note saying it's presumably PD in the US but isn't in Germany, and the photo should be moved to en in preparation for moving to the front page. Is it true this photo is considered PD in the US? Were Nazi records like this placed in the public domain somehow when they were taken by the US military? Tempshill ( talk) 05:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
According to our article on Division (military), a division is 10,000-30,000 men. This article is dealing with the death/capture of far fewer than the minimum of 520,000. Is the mistake there or here, or in my reading of it? -- Dweller ( talk) 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Third Battle of Kharkov#Aftermath: "Following the German success at Kharkov, Hitler was presented with two options."
This is a minor point, but perhaps worth raising. Did someone (a general, an advisor, the General Staff?) present to Hitler these two options during an actual meeting or communication or does the sentence just use the passive voice to convey that Hitler had two options. If it's the former, does the source indicate who did it? A very informative article, by the way, and a pleasure to read. Thank you, – Black Falcon ( Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
70.000 seems to be to low. Woronesch-Charkow-Offensive (13.01.1943 - 03.03.1943) = 153.000 casualties + Charkow-Defensive (04.03.1943 - 25.03.1943) 86.469 . numbers from krivosheev. the battle box says 19 Feb - 15 March so the casualties MUST be higher. i change to 80-90.000 -- HROThomas ( talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Am surprised to see this term not used anywhere, this was the term von Manstien used for these battles and the overall offensive was it not?
Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 ( talk) 14:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a lot of work to remain a FA. Per WP:FACR a FA must be:
1.
2. It follows the style guidelines: No problems here.
3. Media. No Problems with licensing, but the lack of any map or maps of the battle is making it difficult to follow.
4.Length. No major issues here.
I intend to put this article for
WP:FAR in the next couple of weeks, but hope we can get as many issues resolved as possible before that.
D2306 (
talk) 23:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree. No offence to those that did well to get it to FA in the first place, but the above does challange FA status. May I also add the complete lack of discussion on the massive air battles that took place. I could help should anyone choose to revamp this article. Dapi89 ( talk) 12:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"Between 13 January and 3 April 1943, an estimated 500,000 Red Army soldiers took part in what was known as the Voronezh–Kharkov Offensive.[1] In all, an estimated 6,100,000 Soviet soldiers were committed to the area, with another 659,000 out of action with wounds. In comparison, the Germans could account for 2,200,000 personnel on the Eastern Front, with another 100,000 deployed in Norway."
in short: all the numbers in this sentence seem arbitrary and wrong. Can someone check them and correct them? If not I will remove the sentence in question. noclador ( talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
But same principle is valid for Red Army they also have gross number of soldiers and than nett number which represent only combat troops.....so why purposely put "Gross" soviet numbers and compare it to "Nett" German one? Creation of mith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.149.131 ( talk) 10:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
70,000 Russian soldiers? 11,500 casualties? Something is definitely wrong here... -- Paracel63 ( talk) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah..ok! 70,000 Axis soldiers??? Only 2nd SS Corp with 3 full panzergrenadire division had near that number.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.137.149.131 ( talk) 10:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
In the article on Paul Hausser it states that he defied Hitler's order to evacuate the city, in the article on the battle however it sounds like he disobeyed Manstein's order not to attack the city directly (but to encircle it). Historian932 ( talk) 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
So, are we calling it Kharkov or Kharkiv? The latter may be its official name today, but at the time I think it was known to both sides as Kharkov (Russian: Харьков; German phonetic spelling: Charkow). Sca ( talk) 16:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response.... I had some computer problems... It seems that I incorrectly interpreted Wikipedia rules and I am sorry for doing that. Although the article did not follow Wiki standards before my edits also. Thanks for these edits; because of them the Battle of Kharkov articles are finally correct (on the "Kharkov Vs. Kharkiv" issue at least). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
This always struck me as odd, and I suspect it's historically inaccurate.
The first time I encountered this was in Irving's HItler's War and I see it's repeated in this article's cite to a separate work.
I think Irving is confusing the fact that Popov's tanks got to within 20 miles of the Donetz in mid-February, not 20 miles to Manstein.
Moscow to Stalingrad Decision in the East mentions the former but nothing about the latter.
Furthermore, the Lage Ost situation maps for February and March 1943 show no Soviet formations within 80 miles of Manstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.14.31 ( talk) 20:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just read this page and found it to be interesting, according to the truth (such as I've read and watched TV-documentaries about) and NPOV, etc. And I have not contributed one single byte to its contence myself. But I think this article by the very least should get the green "good page". Perhaps even feutered, but I would very much like to nominate this page as "good" - but how do I progress from here ? I've never nominated any page before. Boeing720 ( talk) 06:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Per the above (Article need major work to stay FA), I will edit the article to address some of the concerns around use of Manstein's Lost Victories
Quoting from D2306:
-- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I see that this has been discussed several times before. Does anybody have access to the source and can verify what it says? 52 divisions is about half of what Army Group Center lost in the summer of 1944, so it conjures an image of a catastrophe, rather than a tactical failure from an overextended Red Army at the tail end of a long, bruising Stalingrad campaign.
In Wehrmacht Retreats, Citino mentions one army destroyed and two more badly mauled. In Glantz & House When Titans clashed, a Soviet "army" at the end of 1942 is described as having half a dozen divisions. So it's about 18 (in my calculations). The number of casualties also do not amount to a "catastrophe" (by Eastern Front standards).
Unless this source can be double checked (i.e. what time it covers, etc), I suggest removing his reference from the article. Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Third Battle of Kharkov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)