This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this article not at Operation Mars? Quick google test shows that that's a much more common name for this. Oberiko 02:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is an example of an article where two Wikipedia principles are in opposition. The principle of placing the article under the most common name would indeed put it at Operation Mars. But the principle of neutrality says that, where possible, we should choose names that reflect the experience of both sides in a conflict. An operation name for a battle gives primacy to one side's planning; a geographical name is more neutral. Also, the geographical name gives the reader a clue to where the battle took place, whereas the codename merely obfuscates (as it was, of course, designed to do).
Personally I would prefer to move Operation Uranus to a geographic name. Gdr 19:14, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Forgive the intrusion, but political correctness regarding privileging one viewpoint over another ... doesn't it make sense to do so in the case of offensives, since one side's viewpoint WAS privileged? In this case, it was the Soviets who launched an operation, and thus the objectives are theirs. What the Germans did in response should be included, of course, but the association of a geographic location obfuscates the INTENT and INITIATIVE of the operation. It's referred to commonly, methinks, as Operation MARS because that locates it within the Soviet "grand strategy" or "operational art" as one of a series of SOVIET initiatives. It's hardly a matter of what is "better known"; it has to do with who is doing what. Where the Germans launch an offensive (TYPHOON, etc.), analyses generally "privilege" their point of view for these reasons. This doesn't seem to be at all a case of "victors (re)writing history" as at Tannenberg, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.133.4 ( talk) 11:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you guys consider the Velikiye Luki encirclement and siege to be part of this offensive? It was undertaken by the northern wing of the Kalinin Front, but it seems to have been an attack in a tangential direction. &mdas; B.Bryant 02:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could you make some smaller sections with titles? Wandalstouring 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Copied (by Philip Baird Shearer) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Operation Mars where it will be archived shortly:
From my talk page:
I think mikkalai has justification for his suspicion (see Revision as of 06:25, 8 August 2006 to Revision as of 05:50, 29 August 2006 by 70.123.197.91). I don't recognise the text (but then it is not an area of WWII I have read about in detail) and if it is original work them we should encourage 70.123.197.91 to acquire a user ID -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
While, as a rule, I find that in articles concerned with battles of the Nazi-Soviet theatre of WW2, Soviet losses are exaggerated, here the opposite is true. Glantz puts Soviet losses at 100,000 dead and 300,000 wounded. Why this deflation to a mere 70,000 and on what basis?. There is a reason that he calles this battle "the red army's epic disaster".
glantz deals with krivosheevs numbers and he write that he thinks they are to low. glantz studied this battle for his book and he got other casualties than krivosheev with his look in russian archivs. glantz numbers are more reliable for me. because he knews the numbers and krivosheevs and worked with them but got other numbers after deeper research. -- HROThomas ( talk) 01:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how Glantz counted this numbers because i never saw his research. Also Krivosheev gives numbers of total irrecoverable losses for units not only figures which units gave itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.81.200.151 ( talk) 22:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm rather confused - this article says this Operation was part of an operation taking place from January to April 1942, then goes on to say it occurred in November-December 1942. That makes little sense to me. john k ( talk) 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When was this operation? There are two different dates given. I’ve posted a discussion here. Does anyone know? Xyl 54 ( talk) 15:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This article only show Glantz's view about the strategic objectives of this operation, but not other different viewpoints. Glantz is a respectable and prestigious historian, however we should provide other viewpoints. Михаил Александрович Шолохов ( talk) 13:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
D2306 ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I moved approximately the bottom half of the first part of the article under the title header. It read like a summary as if one would have read the basis of the article, while then getting a summary of the outcome of its basis. I felt moving this into a summary section made the article relevant to orderly reading. Any objections, feel free to place it back into its original form.
Tom C. 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy6860 ( talk • contribs)
There was no reply to this query, so I've gone ahead and resolved it as best I can. This operation took place in November-December 1942, according to the Russian article, so it is superfluous (not to say confusing!) to be referring to operations in January and February 42 in the introduction. So I've deleted all that stuff; I trust that's OK with everyone. The information is still at Battles of Rzhev, anyway, and it make s more sense to keep it there. Xyl 54 ( talk) 18:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
German losses are not more than 40 000 soldiers, including wounded. I corrected the figure -- FEVK ( talk) 23:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
German losses (9 Models army) in Mars 40000 killed and 100 000 wounded. Soviet losses 70 000 killed and 145 000 losses (scientific information). Glanz is non-scientific. Mars - USSR victory, though he lost more — Preceding unsigned comment added by S225n ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
her is it [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by S225n ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The numbers are taken from a Russian source which wildly exaggerates German strength and and diminishes Soviet, for obvious reasons. I intend to remove the ref and numbers, but I have to expertise to look for correct ones. - Altenmann >talk 02:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this article not at Operation Mars? Quick google test shows that that's a much more common name for this. Oberiko 02:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is an example of an article where two Wikipedia principles are in opposition. The principle of placing the article under the most common name would indeed put it at Operation Mars. But the principle of neutrality says that, where possible, we should choose names that reflect the experience of both sides in a conflict. An operation name for a battle gives primacy to one side's planning; a geographical name is more neutral. Also, the geographical name gives the reader a clue to where the battle took place, whereas the codename merely obfuscates (as it was, of course, designed to do).
Personally I would prefer to move Operation Uranus to a geographic name. Gdr 19:14, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Forgive the intrusion, but political correctness regarding privileging one viewpoint over another ... doesn't it make sense to do so in the case of offensives, since one side's viewpoint WAS privileged? In this case, it was the Soviets who launched an operation, and thus the objectives are theirs. What the Germans did in response should be included, of course, but the association of a geographic location obfuscates the INTENT and INITIATIVE of the operation. It's referred to commonly, methinks, as Operation MARS because that locates it within the Soviet "grand strategy" or "operational art" as one of a series of SOVIET initiatives. It's hardly a matter of what is "better known"; it has to do with who is doing what. Where the Germans launch an offensive (TYPHOON, etc.), analyses generally "privilege" their point of view for these reasons. This doesn't seem to be at all a case of "victors (re)writing history" as at Tannenberg, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.133.4 ( talk) 11:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you guys consider the Velikiye Luki encirclement and siege to be part of this offensive? It was undertaken by the northern wing of the Kalinin Front, but it seems to have been an attack in a tangential direction. &mdas; B.Bryant 02:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could you make some smaller sections with titles? Wandalstouring 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Copied (by Philip Baird Shearer) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Operation Mars where it will be archived shortly:
From my talk page:
I think mikkalai has justification for his suspicion (see Revision as of 06:25, 8 August 2006 to Revision as of 05:50, 29 August 2006 by 70.123.197.91). I don't recognise the text (but then it is not an area of WWII I have read about in detail) and if it is original work them we should encourage 70.123.197.91 to acquire a user ID -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
While, as a rule, I find that in articles concerned with battles of the Nazi-Soviet theatre of WW2, Soviet losses are exaggerated, here the opposite is true. Glantz puts Soviet losses at 100,000 dead and 300,000 wounded. Why this deflation to a mere 70,000 and on what basis?. There is a reason that he calles this battle "the red army's epic disaster".
glantz deals with krivosheevs numbers and he write that he thinks they are to low. glantz studied this battle for his book and he got other casualties than krivosheev with his look in russian archivs. glantz numbers are more reliable for me. because he knews the numbers and krivosheevs and worked with them but got other numbers after deeper research. -- HROThomas ( talk) 01:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how Glantz counted this numbers because i never saw his research. Also Krivosheev gives numbers of total irrecoverable losses for units not only figures which units gave itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.81.200.151 ( talk) 22:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm rather confused - this article says this Operation was part of an operation taking place from January to April 1942, then goes on to say it occurred in November-December 1942. That makes little sense to me. john k ( talk) 00:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When was this operation? There are two different dates given. I’ve posted a discussion here. Does anyone know? Xyl 54 ( talk) 15:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
This article only show Glantz's view about the strategic objectives of this operation, but not other different viewpoints. Glantz is a respectable and prestigious historian, however we should provide other viewpoints. Михаил Александрович Шолохов ( talk) 13:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
D2306 ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I moved approximately the bottom half of the first part of the article under the title header. It read like a summary as if one would have read the basis of the article, while then getting a summary of the outcome of its basis. I felt moving this into a summary section made the article relevant to orderly reading. Any objections, feel free to place it back into its original form.
Tom C. 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy6860 ( talk • contribs)
There was no reply to this query, so I've gone ahead and resolved it as best I can. This operation took place in November-December 1942, according to the Russian article, so it is superfluous (not to say confusing!) to be referring to operations in January and February 42 in the introduction. So I've deleted all that stuff; I trust that's OK with everyone. The information is still at Battles of Rzhev, anyway, and it make s more sense to keep it there. Xyl 54 ( talk) 18:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
German losses are not more than 40 000 soldiers, including wounded. I corrected the figure -- FEVK ( talk) 23:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
German losses (9 Models army) in Mars 40000 killed and 100 000 wounded. Soviet losses 70 000 killed and 145 000 losses (scientific information). Glanz is non-scientific. Mars - USSR victory, though he lost more — Preceding unsigned comment added by S225n ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
her is it [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by S225n ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The numbers are taken from a Russian source which wildly exaggerates German strength and and diminishes Soviet, for obvious reasons. I intend to remove the ref and numbers, but I have to expertise to look for correct ones. - Altenmann >talk 02:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)