Talk:Battle of Raseiniai

message: Someone needs to cite the source of a KV-2 being the type that held the 6th Panzer Division. The german sources who wrote the account only list it as a KV, they never specified if it was KV-1 or KV-2.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.164.137.2 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How could the Germans use the Hafthohlladung (HHL) in 1941 when it wasn't introduced until 1942 ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.81.90 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentioning of "Sticky Bomb"

message: Did a drive-by ce and tided a few paragraphs, please revert or amend as desired. I thought the lone KV anecdote was rather good but that it would be better to expand the article around it lest it looks a bit too big. I regret that I couldn't add more citations but the Eastern Front isn't one of my areas. I think the article's coming along rather well though, well done everyone. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! This is my first large-scale edit on an article and it actually feels really good to know that people are recognizing your work and improving on it! Quick question: What does 'CE' stand for? Other than that, thank you for the feedback and I'll try to add onto the article whenever I find something else to include. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it stands for copyedit. MPS1992 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: This is a well-written and informative article. However, in order to get a class B ranking, the entire narrative section must be cited. As of today's date, there is a lot of uncited material. The introduction paragraph does not need to be cited, except in unusual cases. Djmaschek (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the feedback! I (We?) will work on it. We've come a long way from the way it was when we started on it, and our work has been worthwhile! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: Tidied prose, rm dupe wikilinks, rm short sentences and overdose of apostrophes. Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE 

message: In this edit ("Whole section is really speculative. With this much uncertainty should it even be retained in this form?"), the statement: 
*According to some accounts, the crew was buried by the German soldiers with full military honors; in other accounts, the crew escaped during the night.
Was changed to: 
*The crew was killed and then buried by the Germans, with full military honors.
However, the uncertainty comes from the source being cited: "by some accounts (...) while other accounts". Please see: Between Giants: The Battle for the Baltics in World War II, pg. 85.
If the content is indeed too speculative to include, then both parts of the sentence should have been removed. Otherwise, the material is not true to the source and states speculation as fact. I would suggest consulting the sources before making such changes. 
I undid the change: diff; please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The preponderance of the sources indicate the crew was killed, making it the only viable assertion of the two possible. Nonetheless I've removed it pending more definitive sourcing. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with the removal of the sourced content from Prit Buttar. In any case, Wikipedia aims a neutral point of view and presenting both sides of the argument is a must. Dircovic (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of the crew