Talk:Second Battle of Kharkov

message: Someone quoted this website:  http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html as a reference, but wrote total rubbish, numbers wrote about soviet casualties are absolutely wrong and not from the website cited, please check references before allowing people to edit things. 99.231.63.253 (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: There, I finished what should be the ground for the article.  If anybody has anymore to add it's all yours!  I might make changes here and there as I re-read the article.  If there are any issues that need clarification please do not hesitate to bring them up. Catalan 06:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: older entries

message: Someone edited the numbers without leaving a comment, and without adding a resource.  I won't change it back until I get to my house, but I think the edit could have been done with a bit more etiquette - for example, explaining why that change was made in this article's discussion page, or sharing resources, so that this page can turn into an intellectual debate about the battle, which would add more accuracy, as opposed to merely changing statistics without backing up your decision.  I would just appreciate that.  JonCatalan 01:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I personally think that changing numbers should be done in the discussion first and require citation. Oberiko 16:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manpower

message: Very good, balanced article. ( I am a Kharkov native).
#:Support. Very well written article, does not seem to be biased as far as I am aware. Contains a large selection of relevant annotated images. Well written opening section. Only negative, which IMO is what stops it being featured article is the lack of information concerning civillians. The conflict caused huge issues for the civillians of Kharkov and there were large numbers of deaths. This deserves its own section. However, it definately deserve good article status. BSkliarWard 15:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: There is an incosistency within this article. In the General situation on the Eastern Front section is stated that Stalin gave his speech on November 7 1941, and under the picture is stated that this event occured on November 6. -- Obradović Goran  (talk 09:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stalin's speech date

message: I am passing this article as a GA because it covers all aspects from both the German and the Russian points of views, and covers them well. However, in order to have a chance at a FAC, there will need to be more in-line citations and the use of lots more references than just 5. Anyway, congratulations. Diez2 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Passing as GA

message: The official name of the city in Ukrainian is represented as Kharkiv in English, instead of the obsolete (USSR-like) name Kharkov. To my mind, we should rename the article.--Mormat 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the english-lang perspective, I would say that it should stay at Kharkov, which is the standard way it's referred to in academic and popular accounts of the war. Buckshot06 03:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying that the name has changed since then is no reason to move the page. The battle is WIDELY regarded as the battle of Kharkov (as it of course was fought in Soviet times) in literature, films, internet archives etc... I believe de-russification should play no part in wikipedia naming, the name of the battle (and all other naming for that matter) should be decided by it's current popularity. Therefore, renaming of cities should not necessarily mean renaming of battles. Would you rename the battle of Stalingrad, the battle of Volgograd? Regards, Bogdan 04:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it has to be Kharkov, for the reasons noted above. With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kharkov vs Kharkiv

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, the article has two images that need fair use rationales to justify their inclusion in the article. The two images are: :Image:Paulus photo.jpg & :Image:Moskalenko.jpg. Once they have been added, I will pass the article (just leave a message here saying it has been addressed). I'll leave messages on a couple talk pages of editors of this article and the uploader of the images. Please add the FURs within seven days, so the article can continue to maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: On hold

message: Since no action was taken to add fair use rationales, I removed the images from the article. If a fair use rationale is added for each image, they can be readded to the article. At this time, the article continues to meet the requirements of the GA criteria, and I have uploaded the article history of the article to reflect this review. Keep improving the article, and to readd the images, detailed FURs will be needed. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 04:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Pass

message: This article gives figures on Wehrmacht strength from Zhukov's memoirs. While the figures for tanks and aircraft seem plausible, and the troop strength doesn't seem too much of an exaggeration, there is no way the Germans had 57,000 artillery pieces in early 1942.
TariqAlSuave (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wehrmacht Strength

message: This was a Soviet-initiated offensive, and therefore should be known according to the English name of the operation. Second battle of Kharkov is not more descriptive, but is easily confusing due to article naming 1st, 2nd 3rd which is not reflective of the magnitude, time or place of the operation. Struggle is far more evocative of a large operation then 'battle' and helps to distinguish this operation from other operations in the vicinity of the city of Kharkov although no fighting took place even close to the city during this operation. Finally I had to do this because there is yet one more article on operations around Kharkov that needs to be written, and I didn't see it as a good idea in adding a 4th to the 'bunch'--mrg3105mrg3105 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just reverted Mrg3105's hasty move that he made without any agreement here. He should have waited until the larger issue had been decided upon - as it is being discussed on the main MILHIST talk right now. Simply announcing to people that it has been moved because you prefer the Soviet name to the German name is not good enough. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the German name for this "battle" (sources please)?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: How's this for a reason to move - not one of the cited sources uses 2nd Battle of Kharkov--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for move

message: *Oppose We should not be making our own translations; and there is no reason to prefer Soviet names to English ones. Please present a case that English sources call this something else, and I will support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it doesn't really matter whether battle or struggle is used, does it?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It most definately does, as struggle in Russian is борьба, not битва or сражение. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well, the only problem is that the Битва за Харьков is already allocated to the 2nd liberation of Kharkov (city) in 1943. Борьба is not used in any Soviet or Russian sources. According to Dal', сражение is a faster type of battle, but in actual fact the operation took two weeks, far longer then either of the battles for the Kharkov (city). I'm open to suggestions, but I oppose use of invented terms by Irving that are not used in any other source, German or Soviet. If you have read about the operation, it was far more an ebb-and-flow struggle between the two Red Army Fronts and their opponents then a short-duration (couple of days) battle, which is why I decided to use this term as it is a better reflection of the event.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again Mrg, you're talking about Russian names! Битва за Харьков is Russian! Here we use English! Thus we can, and many have done, use numbers in front of the them, from Second Battle of Bull Run onwards! Buckshot06(prof) 22:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Buckshot, this is not a comparative argument, but one of verifiable sources! The Second Battle of Bull Run was actually so named by contemporaries, the Second Battle of Kharkov did not exist! Go look for a source. Until you find one, the operation remains one conducted by the Red Army which happened to have spoken largely Russian, so you will have to swallow your pride and accept that it has to come from a Soviet source despite your love of the English language--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule is WP:COMMONNAME: in English, not in Russian. Right now, you are completely outvoted, and I have refrained from starting to dig up sources because I anticipated vitriolic attacks against their competence. However, if you like, I'll begin. Buckshot06(prof) 21:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Was wondering when someone would show up with Google hits. Well, guess what, Google hits don't count Biru. Source, and verifiable sources do. So, same advice for you as for Buckshot, go find sources of a Second Battle of Kharkov ever having existed, otherwise you are just making it up like David Irving.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need that sort of abrasiveness, thank you very much. I definitely don't need to be compared to a notorious anti-Semite. Guess what, Google hits do count and I'm not "making it up", all right? In fact, Donald M. Goldstein, J. Michael Wenger, Katherine V. Dillon use the term in their book, Williamson Murray and Allan Reed Millett in theirs, John Ward in his, Samuel W. Mitcham in his, Everette Lemons in hers, etc. Those surely count as "verifiable sources" - indeed more so than the Russian source, since these are in English, and we're the English Wikipedia. Biruitorul (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you are not claiming Google hits as the basis of your opposition, but source use. However, all this proves is that many authors to not do their own independent research, but take that of others for granted. What that means is that sometimes they can get burned when their own sources are shown to be fraudulent, as in this case, because, and I repeat, there was never a Second Battle of Kharkov. IF you, and the authors you listed, actually studied the operation, you would know why there never could have been one, and it actually has very little to do with my sources being in Russian. In any case, sources in Russian about a Russian operation seem to be far superior then sources that simply paraphrase each other, or are based on a whimsy of a fraud.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am claiming, and have always claimed, sources found by Google - the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Please review WP:V (an official policy): "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". You have a right to believe that these authors did sloppy research. However, it is not up to us to question the use of that term, which clearly prevails in English. Maybe (I don't hesitate to admit) "Struggle for Kharkov" is the "correct" term. But the common term, the one in use, as shown by sources, whether or not they are to your liking, is "Second Battle of Kharkov", which is why this article should stay put. Biruitorul (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't just jump on the bandwagon DIREKTOR, read below. Septentrionalis has no basis of opposition since his is supporting an entirely fraudulent source. However, given I have shown that three other German sources DO NOT use this name, the onus is on you to do research and find out what the German name for this Red Army operation was. I'll be happy to look at the fruits of your labour.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read below, and I must say once again that I oppose the move per WP:COMMONNAME. My point was that I do not see why we should use the translated Russian, German, Italian or even Croatian name on the English Wikipedia for any operation whatsoever. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, there was no such event, that is why. I use a Russian translation because it was an even named in Russian! It was not an event named in German, or in English. That is the reason Irving made up the name in his translation --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me clarify my point: the event we are talking about appears to be mostly known (in English) as the "Second Battle of Kharkov", whether or not it actually was a second battle for the city of Kharkov is secondary. For example, in the final stages of WW2 the Yugoslav Partisans also did not operate as "partisans" in the strategic sense of the word, but they are still known as the "Yugoslav Partisans" regardless. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you don't understand is that the title is not derived from an English source, so can not have been a "common English usage". It is not common now. It is used by some less discerning authors and a few online websites. It does however itself come from a completely unacceptable source! Not one of the opposers has been able to produce an alternative to the RM because there isn't one. If you READ the other German sources, you also will understand WHY there is no name for this even in German. History is not written with book titles alone, you actually have to read and understand what happened. Other German sources WHO WERE THERE do not support David Irving. This is the case where the English name is not just a misnomer like the Battle of Britain, but a fraud.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but to me you appear to be clutching at straws here: if the name "Second Battle of Kharkov" is the most common name in English, then it should be used (unless there is a specific rule stating otherwise). Simple as that. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you participate in this RM if you don't even know whether the name is the most common in English usage or not? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh but why bother? After all, I cannot hope to reach your level of insight in this matter. Oppose. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi again Skinny87. So, you also think that fraudulent research is perfectly ok? In what way do you find my proposal indistinct and inaccurate?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks, Mrg, as I believe you've already been warned about that in other discussions. I oppose the move because the name is not based on inaccurate information (Irving may be an idiot now and his holocaust work rightly discredited, but his work on military areas is still quite accurate, however much I loathe Irving himself). As numerous people have highlighted above, your moving proposal would be inaccurate and goes against even the Russian naming convention, again as users have highlighted above. Thus, I oppose. Skinny87 (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I do not get this. Does that means Beevor stated that the German caught 240000 Soviet prisoners ?
If that is right, I have question: Some of my friend read the book of Beevor (translated to Russian) and only see 24000 prisoners. They also argued that the 240000 prisoners is too large, and if applied the usual death:wounded:captured ratios, the casualties became very large. The Soviet army did not have such many troops to be caught like that.
So, this is 24000 or 240000 prisoners ? Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out that there is no such thing as a death/wounded/captured ratio, it all depends on a battle. For example, Stalingrad, being a large battle of encirclement, yielded a large number of German prisoners, while Kursk, not being a battle of encirclement, didn't yield too many German prisoners. Perhaps dead/wounded ratio has a little merit to it (often, but by no means as a rule, 1/3 or 1/4). With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Beevor puts Soviet losses in terms of prisoners as 240,000

message: The soviet union has 1,176 tanks but looses 1,250 tanks. how is this possible?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.51.88 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanks

message: The spelling of the city name here was boldly changed on 21 February with the edit summary “to reflect common English usage & for consistency within this article and with the one on Kharkiv”. I have reverted these changes, as the rationale is wholly incorrect.</br>
The relevant guideline is WP:NC(Geographical names), which says “if…the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used”. In this case "Kharkov" is correct.</br>
There is a fuller discussion here. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kharkov / Kharkiv 

message: I could not quite understand the relevance of this passage, as it seems to be mostly about the operations in the Crimea and the commander general reactions.
*In an unusual move, Hitler kept it in the Crimea, but did not put the corps under the command of Luftflotte 4 (Air Fleet 4), which already contained 6th Air Corps, under the command of General Kurt Pflugbeil, and Fliegerführer Süd (Flying Command South), a small anti-shipping command based in the Crimea. Instead, he allowed Richthofen to take charge of all operations over Sevastopol. The siege in the Crimea was not over, and the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula had not yet been won. Still, Hitler was pleased with the progress there and content to keep Richthofen where he was and withdraw air support from Fliegerkorps VIII in order to prevent a Soviet breakthrough at Kharkov. The use of the Luftwaffe to compensate for the German Army's lack of firepower suggested that the OKW saw the Luftwaffe primarily as a ground support arm. This angered Richthofen who complained that the Luftwaffe was treated as "the army's whore".Hayward 1997, p. 21. Now that he was not being redeployed to Kharkov, Richthofen also complained about the withdrawal of his units to the region, arguing that the Kerch and Sevastopol battles were ongoing and owing to the transfer of aerial assets to Kharkov, victory in the Crimea was no longer guaranteed. In reality, the Soviet units at Kerch were already routed and the Axis position at Sevastopol was comfortable.
Can someone clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air operations