This page 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. |
Quoted: Mid-August, Hitler understood that the Soviet offensive could not be contained - at least, not until some internal disagreement would break up among the Allies. Considering all this, he decided to buy time by constructing a series of fortifications to slow down the Red Army and demanded the Wermacht to defend its positions on the Dnieper at all costs
This gives Hitler a reasonable amount of credit as a strategist. Given only the bare facts (I've not studied this), it seems reasonable to suggest that Hitler was merely trying to hold onto conquered territory at all costs (he had refused to allow retreats on several other occasions). Does the scholarship suggest otherwise? Won't change till someone knowledgeable rings in. Skanar
Infobox says 1.2 million soviet casualties and a high estimate of 1.5 million axis casualties. yet the article says there were more than 3 million casualties on both sides? Borisblue 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It is claimed that the right bank of the Dnieper is higher due to the coriolis force. This is untrue. (e.g. compare to a river near you). Sure, the right bank of the Dnieper is generally higher because it tends to curve to the right. However, this curving is caused by local geology and most certainly not by the Coriolis force. This reminds me of the common coriolis force myth that water draining from a sink spirals differently in the northern and southernm hemisphere. Come on. Try it with different tap positions, instead. Deuar 13:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"Liberate" is loaded for sure, but so is "take." Let's find a neutral word that is accurate (I don't know enough about this to do it myself...). Perhaps "advanced to" or "moved" to the other side of the river. How about "Kiev Campaign"? Or "Battle for Kiev"? NPOV, please. PatrickFisher 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The term "liberation" is used in the Western literature to describe the Red Army advances not just in Ukraine, but even in Poland. And no one is talking about Lviv liberation in connection of '39 events. That was no a liberation in any way. '44-'45 events is a different story. I am still waiting for AndriyK doing the first non-revert edit for weeks or so. Probably, I am out of luck. --
Irpen 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your neutrallity has become legendary, AndriyK. -- Irpen 19:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The context is not just "liberation" but "liberation from Nazism". Even some Polish editors that are difficult to suspect in Russophilic views agree to such formulation. Of course for such a neutrallity warrior as AndriyK accepting anything at all is an impossibility. -- Irpen 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Some good points are made here, and "liberate" may not be objectionable in most circumstances. However, there are passionate differences of opinion here, so we should aim for a correspondingly high level of NPOV. The word liberate is defined as, "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." When you liberate something, you are granting liberty and, hence, breaking shackles. Yes, the foreign control part is strictly accurate, but the other meanings give the term a strong connotation that there was relatively greater oppression prior to the action. This is a controversial implication that may be examined, but should not be allowed to sneak in the back door. Take, as an alternative, is far better, although I think there is a slight connotation that the actor is not the rightful owner of what is being taken (implied by the existence of its counterpart, retake). I still feel that purely militaristic terminology, as a precise jargon unrelated to politics, will be the least POV. Battle of Lower Dnieper, not the liberation or taking. The X army advanced to a strong point at A, the Y army retreated to entrenched positions at B. The focus of this article is a military action, let's keep it that way. - PatrickFisher 03:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Liberate is the most accurate term, since it was territory within the Soviet Union that had been occupied by a hostile foreign country. I don't really see why it's so contreversial, other than because polititians will often twist the meaning of that word. ( Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, Liberation of Iraq, etc., etc. MarcusGraly 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole issue about who was good and who was bad for Ukraine is off-topic here. In the context of WW2 the term always implies liberation from nazi occupation. A wrath of western WW2 books use this term and it is applicable without any doubt. Besides, even in modern independent Ukraine itself the term is used. The anniversary of "Vyzvolennya" (literary translation of "liberation") is celebrated by parades and various public events. But even this is only slightly related. Liberation from Nazi occupation is factually correct and is used widely.
Even the Britannica, which is as mainstream as one can possibly be, the term is used. From Kiev article in EB: "General Nikolay Vatutin, commander of the Soviet forces that liberated Kiev in 1943". ALso, same article: "In 1943 the advancing Soviet troops forded the Dnieper and, after bitter fighting, liberated Kiev on November 6.". I am saddened that AndriyK still does nothing but POV-pushing revert wars. Please write something rather than damage the work of others. -- Irpen 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I object to "reclaim" or "take". Any term in the set: liberate, take, reclaim, occupy, etc. may have a POV interpretation depending on how strongly one hates/loves the Soviets (or the Nazis for that matter). As such, the absolutely neutral terms simply don't exist, and they can't exist, since we are dealing with history and politics rather than math and science. Historic subjects are inherently more emotional and colorful and we don't want the articles to be fully censored to the extent that they are unreadable to a non-professional historian. Besides, this is an encyclopedia, not a journal publication and should be written for the general public, not professional historians.
This is exactly the case where the term to use should be determined by the prevailing usage in the mainstream historiography. That other author "don't have to be neutral like us" is mere nonsense. All respected historians attempt and strive for neutrality in their writings. So is Britannica and any source that claims respectability. "Liberation from Nazi occupation" is a specific term widely used in the mainstream, and the author who writes the WP article should be allowed to use it without the fear of someone who hasn't written anything ever for Wikipedia but roams from article to article with his extreme views and inflames a bunch of edit wars until s/he gets blocked again for disruption. -- Irpen 06:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Tufkaa, any word chosen here bears some POV flavor. Reclaim, same as claim, implies the legitimacy is not unquestionable. "..the United States claimed the territory up to Russian Alaska (54o 40' N) and the British claimed the land down to the Columbia River." [3] Or "The United States claimed to be "saving" the people of Iraq from a tyrant and bringing democracy to the Middle East." [4] I don't want to get into an argument on the legitimacy of the Soviet control over Ukraine. Both sides have their arguments.
The issue here is that each and every word has a POV flavor. The only solution is to use what the respected scholars use. They do use "liberate" in the context of kicking Nazis out. We do not have to use this term in each sentence of the article, but we should be allowed to use it and we should not tolerate "editors" who write nothing but roam from article to article with word changing ideas and POV tag insertions. -- Irpen 20:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, you are dead wrong here that the respected scholars don't write encyclopedias and that don't have to write neutrally. A politician doesn't have to be neutral, the scholar does if he has any respectability claim. Britannica and Columbia certainly have a NPOV policy. Here is the statement from the EB's web-site: "Britannica provides neutral, unbiased perspectives on issues and conflicts." Even those article in EB which are "signed" are all written by respected researchers in the field from the world's top universities. So, pls no BS that a researcher who writes in his professional field doesn't have to be neutral. He not always is but he always tries to, at list he should. If you are saying that you, as an author, are more neutral than Britannica this would be a Wikipedia joke of the day. -- Irpen 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Kazak, please stay polite. Leave the rudeness to those you despise.
Tufkaa, the problem, as I said earlier, is that almost every term has a POV flavor. We may come up with a word that doesn't and I agree to also use it. It would be plain stupid to use "liberation" all the time throughout the article. We may use "advanced into", "drove out" and even disliked by me "took" at times. But I want that "liberation" be allowed to use along with other words to the editors. This is my offer of compromise: Liberation can be used for the events of driving out Nazis but not uniformly throughout the text, but as one of several variants. And "occupation" should not be even in the picture for 43-45. It is fine to use occupation in certain context though, for '39. How about that? -- Irpen 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there have been a few misinterpretations. In my prior comment I was asking if everyone agreed that the term "liberation" is problematic on its own, not erasing the history of the Soviet Union with my use of the word irrespective (as in the use of "liberation" in a context not having anything to do with the current article). My purpose here is not to belittle the Soviet Union. Quite the contrary, I am trying to eliminate unnecessary phrasings which serve only to stoke opinionated vandalism and revert wars, and I think the best way is to find a reasonable alternative. There are Ukrainian references citing this period as a period of conquest by the Soviets. Neither I, nor those above who find "liberation" questionable are at present advocating for "occupation" or similar term to be inserted into this article. Rather, an alternative is being sought to the term "liberation" which does not imply that freedom was gained by the inhabitants of the area.
How about using other words throughout, and leaving "liberation" in a historical explanatory note (eg. This battle has been historically referred to as a liberation, however later developments in the area did not result in society free from foreign domination; I'm sorry that is very poorly worded, but a tactful version of that would be my intent.)?
Also, the revulsion to "take", as brought up by Mbuk below, is exactly the reaction that many have to "liberation" and yet it is still advocated. How is "liberation" less problematic than "take"?-- tufkaa 23:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I find that 'liberated from Nazis' is usually a good compromise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The argument here is not the media usage. The argument is scholarly usage in most mainstream books about the WW2 and two most respected English language encyclopedia'.
If your pet terms are as widely used, we should use them as well. -- Irpen 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that WP is more neutral than the combined authority of Britannica, Columbia and all the major WW2 history books? And don't get me wrong, I also see no problem in using other terms as well. For purely styllistac reasons having the article full of liberation looks bad. But I am against an automatic censorship of this word, especially by users who do nothing on Wikipedia but roam into article to send them to havoc and leave. -- Irpen 00:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
After reading almost all of the above I still don't get why "take" is not a neutral word? I think it's an appropriate and neutral word and it should be used. In particular, in the first paragraph the verb "liberate" is used twice, which as far as I understand is bad syntax. Instead of repeating "liberation" twice, once we can say "liberation", and the other time "take". It would not hurt to say "liberation from Nazi" at least once to close all the questions (as User:Piotrus proposed). KPbIC 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest everybody partiocipating in this discussion to read WP:NPOV and answer yourself the following questions:
You will find that the answer to the all questions is NO. Therefore, all the arguments about "mainstream", what is recognized by Ukrainian Government and what is suspported by majority in the West are irrelevant.
The purpose of WP is to represent neutral POV, i.e. the point of view that "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."
Then both versions are not neutral even if the former one has more supporters.
I read Irpen's comment below aboud the negatrive flavor of the word "take" in English. It would be, however, nice to see a comment of a native English speaker.
In any case, nobody objected so far against "advance" or "enter". Why not "Soviet Army advance to occupied territories" and "Soviet Army entered Kiev."?-- AndriyK 11:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kuban kazak, please read my comments carefully and read WP:NPOV I explained above why "liberation" is not a neutral term. The opinion of Ukrainian Goevrnment is irrelevant to WP. What is used "everywhere" and "by majority" is also irrelevant. WP should use neutral wording. The discussion is useless if you repeat your just state your POV many times without listening to other people.-- AndriyK 08:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
WP articles should use neutral wording. This is the only thing what I am saying. Averything else is a product of your immagination.-- AndriyK 09:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not twist my words.-- AndriyK 14:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Because some people were removing the POV tag alleging that there was a consensus, I decided to review the discussion for the convenience of all parties. (If I unintentionally presented anybody's position inaccurately, please feel free to correct).
As you see, there is no consensus. The discussion is not over. Removing of the tag in this case should be considered as WP:Vandalism.-- AndriyK 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Since noone has made any clear points, can all those who've been alerted to come and "vote" here please read the summary of different positions below, and help bring us towards consensus by explaining your thoughts. Thank you! -- tufkaa 06:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Mediation makes sence if the involved parties recognise that there is a POV problem and would like to use assistence of a mediator to solve it and build a consensus. So far one of the parties pretended that there is no problem and was removing the tag. Before I request the mediation I would like to see whether there are people in the opposite party who is ready to participate in the mediation procedure and build a consensus. Please, everybody who is ready to take part in the mediation procedure add youre name to the list below.-- AndriyK 09:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to participate in a mediation procedure to build a consensus about the use of word "liberate" and its derivatives in the present article and other WWII articles.
Слова Е.Долматовского, музыка М.Фрадкина Исполняет: Л.Утесов 1945г.
С боем взяли мы Орел, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Брянская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли город Брянск, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Минская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли город Минск, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Брестская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли город Брест, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Люблинская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли город Люблин, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Варшавская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли мы Варшаву, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Берлинская улица по городу идет! Значит нам туда дорога, значит на туда дорога!
1945
This song was popular among Soviet soldiers in the end of the war. It uses Russian word "взяли" (wich means "took") with respect to Orel, Bryansk, Minsk, Lublin and Warsaw. So at least in Russian this word has no negative meaning with respect to Soviet soldiers that took the cities from Germans. Is it different in English?-- Mbuk 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not object against liberation. I just wanted to ask whether the wodr 'take' is as neutral in English as in Russian. I read the discussion and saw some people objecting agains using the word 'take'. Maybe in English it has different flavor?-- Mbuk 23:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words about DYK and FA, Kuban Kazak. The DYK is already here, I hope it will achieve FA too :)
To all: It took me a whole lot of time to put the initial version of that article together, time that is even more precious because I already have a lot of work in real life. Nevertheless, I wish to contribute to Wikipedia on several subjects including this one, because whether one wants it or not, WW2 is among the greatest pages of human history.
Consequently, the sight of some POV-pushers letting such a work go to waste hurts me. A lot. I am far from being a Russian patriot and I do not even live in Russia, but what was done there must be remembered. Modern history revision to suit ambitions of some politicians, be they in Kiev, Moscow or Upper Volta, is a dangerous game that should be avoided at all costs, especially on a site like Wikipedia. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't object strongly to liberate, as it is in common usage. I support using the word liberate, unlocking the page, and treating any further POV edits as vandalism. A note to KK about reclaim and reacquire: While they are very similar, reacquire carries a connotation that the subject was previously acquired, but reclaim does not necessarily imply that. It's subtle distinction and hard to explain, but that's what they mean to me, a native speaker; I think these connotations come from the various contexts in which the words are typically used. PatrickFisher 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I can find zero sources that refer to "Battle of the Lower Dnieper" that do not originate from this article or Death toll. (By the way, that article lists only 170,000 dead for the whole battle. Stuff like this is original research: "The simple rule of 3:1 losses during an offensive operation against a heavily defended enemy would lead to a 500,000 casualties toll, reaching the one of Kursk. [...] Indeed, if one considers the casualties per day ratio of Kursk battle, an operation twice as long under similar conditions would lead to a 1,000,000 toll.") Anyway, unless someone can cite sources that specifically refer to this "battle", any non-redundant, factual content should be merged into Eastern Front (World War II). heqs 00:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Article are fine to exist under descriptive titles if the event lacks a unified name in the literature. The only issue is for the titles not to be a POV, like List of Polish Martyrdom sites. -- Irpen 05:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Are there no page refs? I'm not turning anything up. Another heroic Soviet victory? Creating articles for non-existent battles is POV-pushing, and the "descriptive title" is not accurate. This article is about a period of time, or a series of offensives, not a battle. Most of it is redundant information, and a good deal of it is conjecture. heqs 08:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Eastern_Front_in_Autumn_and_Winter_1943. There's not a single solitary reference for the battle "...considered to be one of the largest battles in world history, involving almost 4,000,000 men on both sides...one of the bloodiest battles, with estimates ranging from 1,700,000 to 2,700,000 casualties on both sides." On the other hand, "some historians do not consider it a discrete "battle," and grant the Battle of Stalingrad the title of the bloodiest battle in history."
I'd settle for a single title and page number where this battle is mentioned... heqs 10:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
In Russian, "Battle for Dnieper" is spelled "Битва за Днепр". Look it up in google and you will turn up with a lot of references. [11], [12] and so on.
So why battle of the lower dnieper? because the battle for "high" dnieper is split in Smolensk (1943) (which does not even exist IIRC but I'm working on it).
Man I just don't believe what I just read... -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 10:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Inventing terms is indeed OR, but this is just a descriptive title. It is OK to have IMO. See, for instance, Prussian Holocaust vs Evacuation of East Prussia. The formes is an invented term and is a term article. The latter is an account of the events under the descriptive title. The author of our article here didn't invent any code-names. He simply put the title that describes what the article is about. The suggestion "It should be... , or deleted" over the title looks bizarre. -- Irpen 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Quoted: Mid-August, Hitler understood that the Soviet offensive could not be contained - at least, not until some internal disagreement would break up among the Allies. Considering all this, he decided to buy time by constructing a series of fortifications to slow down the Red Army and demanded the Wermacht to defend its positions on the Dnieper at all costs
This gives Hitler a reasonable amount of credit as a strategist. Given only the bare facts (I've not studied this), it seems reasonable to suggest that Hitler was merely trying to hold onto conquered territory at all costs (he had refused to allow retreats on several other occasions). Does the scholarship suggest otherwise? Won't change till someone knowledgeable rings in. Skanar
Infobox says 1.2 million soviet casualties and a high estimate of 1.5 million axis casualties. yet the article says there were more than 3 million casualties on both sides? Borisblue 10:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
It is claimed that the right bank of the Dnieper is higher due to the coriolis force. This is untrue. (e.g. compare to a river near you). Sure, the right bank of the Dnieper is generally higher because it tends to curve to the right. However, this curving is caused by local geology and most certainly not by the Coriolis force. This reminds me of the common coriolis force myth that water draining from a sink spirals differently in the northern and southernm hemisphere. Come on. Try it with different tap positions, instead. Deuar 13:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
"Liberate" is loaded for sure, but so is "take." Let's find a neutral word that is accurate (I don't know enough about this to do it myself...). Perhaps "advanced to" or "moved" to the other side of the river. How about "Kiev Campaign"? Or "Battle for Kiev"? NPOV, please. PatrickFisher 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The term "liberation" is used in the Western literature to describe the Red Army advances not just in Ukraine, but even in Poland. And no one is talking about Lviv liberation in connection of '39 events. That was no a liberation in any way. '44-'45 events is a different story. I am still waiting for AndriyK doing the first non-revert edit for weeks or so. Probably, I am out of luck. --
Irpen 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your neutrallity has become legendary, AndriyK. -- Irpen 19:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The context is not just "liberation" but "liberation from Nazism". Even some Polish editors that are difficult to suspect in Russophilic views agree to such formulation. Of course for such a neutrallity warrior as AndriyK accepting anything at all is an impossibility. -- Irpen 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Some good points are made here, and "liberate" may not be objectionable in most circumstances. However, there are passionate differences of opinion here, so we should aim for a correspondingly high level of NPOV. The word liberate is defined as, "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control." When you liberate something, you are granting liberty and, hence, breaking shackles. Yes, the foreign control part is strictly accurate, but the other meanings give the term a strong connotation that there was relatively greater oppression prior to the action. This is a controversial implication that may be examined, but should not be allowed to sneak in the back door. Take, as an alternative, is far better, although I think there is a slight connotation that the actor is not the rightful owner of what is being taken (implied by the existence of its counterpart, retake). I still feel that purely militaristic terminology, as a precise jargon unrelated to politics, will be the least POV. Battle of Lower Dnieper, not the liberation or taking. The X army advanced to a strong point at A, the Y army retreated to entrenched positions at B. The focus of this article is a military action, let's keep it that way. - PatrickFisher 03:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Liberate is the most accurate term, since it was territory within the Soviet Union that had been occupied by a hostile foreign country. I don't really see why it's so contreversial, other than because polititians will often twist the meaning of that word. ( Peaceful Liberation of Tibet, Liberation of Iraq, etc., etc. MarcusGraly 15:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole issue about who was good and who was bad for Ukraine is off-topic here. In the context of WW2 the term always implies liberation from nazi occupation. A wrath of western WW2 books use this term and it is applicable without any doubt. Besides, even in modern independent Ukraine itself the term is used. The anniversary of "Vyzvolennya" (literary translation of "liberation") is celebrated by parades and various public events. But even this is only slightly related. Liberation from Nazi occupation is factually correct and is used widely.
Even the Britannica, which is as mainstream as one can possibly be, the term is used. From Kiev article in EB: "General Nikolay Vatutin, commander of the Soviet forces that liberated Kiev in 1943". ALso, same article: "In 1943 the advancing Soviet troops forded the Dnieper and, after bitter fighting, liberated Kiev on November 6.". I am saddened that AndriyK still does nothing but POV-pushing revert wars. Please write something rather than damage the work of others. -- Irpen 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I object to "reclaim" or "take". Any term in the set: liberate, take, reclaim, occupy, etc. may have a POV interpretation depending on how strongly one hates/loves the Soviets (or the Nazis for that matter). As such, the absolutely neutral terms simply don't exist, and they can't exist, since we are dealing with history and politics rather than math and science. Historic subjects are inherently more emotional and colorful and we don't want the articles to be fully censored to the extent that they are unreadable to a non-professional historian. Besides, this is an encyclopedia, not a journal publication and should be written for the general public, not professional historians.
This is exactly the case where the term to use should be determined by the prevailing usage in the mainstream historiography. That other author "don't have to be neutral like us" is mere nonsense. All respected historians attempt and strive for neutrality in their writings. So is Britannica and any source that claims respectability. "Liberation from Nazi occupation" is a specific term widely used in the mainstream, and the author who writes the WP article should be allowed to use it without the fear of someone who hasn't written anything ever for Wikipedia but roams from article to article with his extreme views and inflames a bunch of edit wars until s/he gets blocked again for disruption. -- Irpen 06:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Tufkaa, any word chosen here bears some POV flavor. Reclaim, same as claim, implies the legitimacy is not unquestionable. "..the United States claimed the territory up to Russian Alaska (54o 40' N) and the British claimed the land down to the Columbia River." [3] Or "The United States claimed to be "saving" the people of Iraq from a tyrant and bringing democracy to the Middle East." [4] I don't want to get into an argument on the legitimacy of the Soviet control over Ukraine. Both sides have their arguments.
The issue here is that each and every word has a POV flavor. The only solution is to use what the respected scholars use. They do use "liberate" in the context of kicking Nazis out. We do not have to use this term in each sentence of the article, but we should be allowed to use it and we should not tolerate "editors" who write nothing but roam from article to article with word changing ideas and POV tag insertions. -- Irpen 20:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, you are dead wrong here that the respected scholars don't write encyclopedias and that don't have to write neutrally. A politician doesn't have to be neutral, the scholar does if he has any respectability claim. Britannica and Columbia certainly have a NPOV policy. Here is the statement from the EB's web-site: "Britannica provides neutral, unbiased perspectives on issues and conflicts." Even those article in EB which are "signed" are all written by respected researchers in the field from the world's top universities. So, pls no BS that a researcher who writes in his professional field doesn't have to be neutral. He not always is but he always tries to, at list he should. If you are saying that you, as an author, are more neutral than Britannica this would be a Wikipedia joke of the day. -- Irpen 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Kazak, please stay polite. Leave the rudeness to those you despise.
Tufkaa, the problem, as I said earlier, is that almost every term has a POV flavor. We may come up with a word that doesn't and I agree to also use it. It would be plain stupid to use "liberation" all the time throughout the article. We may use "advanced into", "drove out" and even disliked by me "took" at times. But I want that "liberation" be allowed to use along with other words to the editors. This is my offer of compromise: Liberation can be used for the events of driving out Nazis but not uniformly throughout the text, but as one of several variants. And "occupation" should not be even in the picture for 43-45. It is fine to use occupation in certain context though, for '39. How about that? -- Irpen 22:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there have been a few misinterpretations. In my prior comment I was asking if everyone agreed that the term "liberation" is problematic on its own, not erasing the history of the Soviet Union with my use of the word irrespective (as in the use of "liberation" in a context not having anything to do with the current article). My purpose here is not to belittle the Soviet Union. Quite the contrary, I am trying to eliminate unnecessary phrasings which serve only to stoke opinionated vandalism and revert wars, and I think the best way is to find a reasonable alternative. There are Ukrainian references citing this period as a period of conquest by the Soviets. Neither I, nor those above who find "liberation" questionable are at present advocating for "occupation" or similar term to be inserted into this article. Rather, an alternative is being sought to the term "liberation" which does not imply that freedom was gained by the inhabitants of the area.
How about using other words throughout, and leaving "liberation" in a historical explanatory note (eg. This battle has been historically referred to as a liberation, however later developments in the area did not result in society free from foreign domination; I'm sorry that is very poorly worded, but a tactful version of that would be my intent.)?
Also, the revulsion to "take", as brought up by Mbuk below, is exactly the reaction that many have to "liberation" and yet it is still advocated. How is "liberation" less problematic than "take"?-- tufkaa 23:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I find that 'liberated from Nazis' is usually a good compromise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The argument here is not the media usage. The argument is scholarly usage in most mainstream books about the WW2 and two most respected English language encyclopedia'.
If your pet terms are as widely used, we should use them as well. -- Irpen 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that WP is more neutral than the combined authority of Britannica, Columbia and all the major WW2 history books? And don't get me wrong, I also see no problem in using other terms as well. For purely styllistac reasons having the article full of liberation looks bad. But I am against an automatic censorship of this word, especially by users who do nothing on Wikipedia but roam into article to send them to havoc and leave. -- Irpen 00:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
After reading almost all of the above I still don't get why "take" is not a neutral word? I think it's an appropriate and neutral word and it should be used. In particular, in the first paragraph the verb "liberate" is used twice, which as far as I understand is bad syntax. Instead of repeating "liberation" twice, once we can say "liberation", and the other time "take". It would not hurt to say "liberation from Nazi" at least once to close all the questions (as User:Piotrus proposed). KPbIC 04:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest everybody partiocipating in this discussion to read WP:NPOV and answer yourself the following questions:
You will find that the answer to the all questions is NO. Therefore, all the arguments about "mainstream", what is recognized by Ukrainian Government and what is suspported by majority in the West are irrelevant.
The purpose of WP is to represent neutral POV, i.e. the point of view that "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."
Then both versions are not neutral even if the former one has more supporters.
I read Irpen's comment below aboud the negatrive flavor of the word "take" in English. It would be, however, nice to see a comment of a native English speaker.
In any case, nobody objected so far against "advance" or "enter". Why not "Soviet Army advance to occupied territories" and "Soviet Army entered Kiev."?-- AndriyK 11:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear Kuban kazak, please read my comments carefully and read WP:NPOV I explained above why "liberation" is not a neutral term. The opinion of Ukrainian Goevrnment is irrelevant to WP. What is used "everywhere" and "by majority" is also irrelevant. WP should use neutral wording. The discussion is useless if you repeat your just state your POV many times without listening to other people.-- AndriyK 08:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
WP articles should use neutral wording. This is the only thing what I am saying. Averything else is a product of your immagination.-- AndriyK 09:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Please do not twist my words.-- AndriyK 14:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Because some people were removing the POV tag alleging that there was a consensus, I decided to review the discussion for the convenience of all parties. (If I unintentionally presented anybody's position inaccurately, please feel free to correct).
As you see, there is no consensus. The discussion is not over. Removing of the tag in this case should be considered as WP:Vandalism.-- AndriyK 15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Since noone has made any clear points, can all those who've been alerted to come and "vote" here please read the summary of different positions below, and help bring us towards consensus by explaining your thoughts. Thank you! -- tufkaa 06:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Mediation makes sence if the involved parties recognise that there is a POV problem and would like to use assistence of a mediator to solve it and build a consensus. So far one of the parties pretended that there is no problem and was removing the tag. Before I request the mediation I would like to see whether there are people in the opposite party who is ready to participate in the mediation procedure and build a consensus. Please, everybody who is ready to take part in the mediation procedure add youre name to the list below.-- AndriyK 09:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to participate in a mediation procedure to build a consensus about the use of word "liberate" and its derivatives in the present article and other WWII articles.
Слова Е.Долматовского, музыка М.Фрадкина Исполняет: Л.Утесов 1945г.
С боем взяли мы Орел, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Брянская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли город Брянск, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Минская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли город Минск, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Брестская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли город Брест, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Люблинская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли город Люблин, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Варшавская улица по городу идет - Значит нам туда дорога, значит нам туда дорога...
С боем взяли мы Варшаву, город весь прошли, И последней улицы название прочли, А название такое, право слово, боевое: Берлинская улица по городу идет! Значит нам туда дорога, значит на туда дорога!
1945
This song was popular among Soviet soldiers in the end of the war. It uses Russian word "взяли" (wich means "took") with respect to Orel, Bryansk, Minsk, Lublin and Warsaw. So at least in Russian this word has no negative meaning with respect to Soviet soldiers that took the cities from Germans. Is it different in English?-- Mbuk 22:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not object against liberation. I just wanted to ask whether the wodr 'take' is as neutral in English as in Russian. I read the discussion and saw some people objecting agains using the word 'take'. Maybe in English it has different flavor?-- Mbuk 23:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words about DYK and FA, Kuban Kazak. The DYK is already here, I hope it will achieve FA too :)
To all: It took me a whole lot of time to put the initial version of that article together, time that is even more precious because I already have a lot of work in real life. Nevertheless, I wish to contribute to Wikipedia on several subjects including this one, because whether one wants it or not, WW2 is among the greatest pages of human history.
Consequently, the sight of some POV-pushers letting such a work go to waste hurts me. A lot. I am far from being a Russian patriot and I do not even live in Russia, but what was done there must be remembered. Modern history revision to suit ambitions of some politicians, be they in Kiev, Moscow or Upper Volta, is a dangerous game that should be avoided at all costs, especially on a site like Wikipedia. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't object strongly to liberate, as it is in common usage. I support using the word liberate, unlocking the page, and treating any further POV edits as vandalism. A note to KK about reclaim and reacquire: While they are very similar, reacquire carries a connotation that the subject was previously acquired, but reclaim does not necessarily imply that. It's subtle distinction and hard to explain, but that's what they mean to me, a native speaker; I think these connotations come from the various contexts in which the words are typically used. PatrickFisher 05:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I can find zero sources that refer to "Battle of the Lower Dnieper" that do not originate from this article or Death toll. (By the way, that article lists only 170,000 dead for the whole battle. Stuff like this is original research: "The simple rule of 3:1 losses during an offensive operation against a heavily defended enemy would lead to a 500,000 casualties toll, reaching the one of Kursk. [...] Indeed, if one considers the casualties per day ratio of Kursk battle, an operation twice as long under similar conditions would lead to a 1,000,000 toll.") Anyway, unless someone can cite sources that specifically refer to this "battle", any non-redundant, factual content should be merged into Eastern Front (World War II). heqs 00:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Article are fine to exist under descriptive titles if the event lacks a unified name in the literature. The only issue is for the titles not to be a POV, like List of Polish Martyrdom sites. -- Irpen 05:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Are there no page refs? I'm not turning anything up. Another heroic Soviet victory? Creating articles for non-existent battles is POV-pushing, and the "descriptive title" is not accurate. This article is about a period of time, or a series of offensives, not a battle. Most of it is redundant information, and a good deal of it is conjecture. heqs 08:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Eastern_Front_in_Autumn_and_Winter_1943. There's not a single solitary reference for the battle "...considered to be one of the largest battles in world history, involving almost 4,000,000 men on both sides...one of the bloodiest battles, with estimates ranging from 1,700,000 to 2,700,000 casualties on both sides." On the other hand, "some historians do not consider it a discrete "battle," and grant the Battle of Stalingrad the title of the bloodiest battle in history."
I'd settle for a single title and page number where this battle is mentioned... heqs 10:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
In Russian, "Battle for Dnieper" is spelled "Битва за Днепр". Look it up in google and you will turn up with a lot of references. [11], [12] and so on.
So why battle of the lower dnieper? because the battle for "high" dnieper is split in Smolensk (1943) (which does not even exist IIRC but I'm working on it).
Man I just don't believe what I just read... -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 10:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Inventing terms is indeed OR, but this is just a descriptive title. It is OK to have IMO. See, for instance, Prussian Holocaust vs Evacuation of East Prussia. The formes is an invented term and is a term article. The latter is an account of the events under the descriptive title. The author of our article here didn't invent any code-names. He simply put the title that describes what the article is about. The suggestion "It should be... , or deleted" over the title looks bizarre. -- Irpen 19:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)