Talk:Smolensk operation

message: I agree with Ghirla... fascinating stuff! ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: don't grok the whole good article thing... seems to be at the whim of one person. Someone nominated one of mine, Gaylord Building and then it was gone again, with no real feedback on why it wasn't good enough. I never quite got the process. I think it's a good article though. Maybe even a potential Featured Article some day... ++Lar: t/c 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated one of my articles straight for FA without any GA nomination. Go for it, we can never have too many war articles. :D -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK! 

message: A minor point, but the article is inconsistent as to whether to use stanka or STANKA.  It would be nice to clear that up before it goes on the main page. HenryFlower 22:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First it's Stavka. :) Second it is an acronym that is also a word (Stavka means command camp and it is also an abbreviation of Shtab verkhovnogo komandovanya. In western literature it is sometimes written capitalized as STAVKA. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was no such thing, as "Штаб Верховного Командования" (Shtab Verkhovnogo komandovaniya). Red Army had a General Staff (Генеральный Штаб Красной Армии), that's it. But there is a part of truth in there - the full title of Stavka after August 8, 1941 was Stavka Verhovnogo Glavnokomandovaniya (Ставка Верховного Главнокомандования).Fat yankey 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: I set all to lower caps just to be sure... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I got it right in the heading, at least. ;) HenryFlower 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stavka or STAVKA? 

message: Congratulations to the editors thus far on chronicling an important battle.  I have one question - what the heck is a "depeche"? I tried to edit this out but honestly couldn't figure out if it meant "officer", "staff officer", "briefing" or something else based on context clues.
I've also made some copyedits and tightened up the prose - the article was very conversational in tone but otherwise quite good as far as content; hopefully the number of edits won't seem alarming, they are almost all stylistic rather than factual.  I've also changed "Wehrmacht" in some cases to "German" though perhaps "Axis" would be better.  Wehrmacht refers to the Air Force, Army and Navy. Axis would include Romanian, Hungarian, Italian etc. troops. I also deleted the phrase about Germany "losing their best men" in two years of war as a POV statement that is unprovable and probably false in any event.  Again, good work so far, I enjoyed reading it.Michael Dorosh 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A depeche is a dispatch, or message. I'd agree a more common word would be better. HenryFlower 09:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedits

message: Has the use of "repel" been considered? "Repulse" does not sound like a verb, and even though the dictionary lists it as such. "Drive back" would be an anglosaxon alternative (studies show that texts written predominantly in anglosaxon words are easier to understand than texts written in Latin-derived vocabulary; I will not provide a reference for this). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repulsed? 

message: Whoah....I spent a lot of time cleaning up language that was misleading and historically inaccurate - please don't simply revert wholesale without considering why the changes are made. I've outlined the reasons for some of the changes above - ie use of "Wehrmacht" where "Germans" is more appropriate, and the use of "best men" which is POV and really has no meaning. The article would benefit from an examination of these points one by one rather than assuming pride of ownership and making blanket revisions. Can we not work together?Michael Dorosh 14:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale reverts 

message: Is it just me, or is there an enormous picture of a penis in this article? The thing took me off guard and nobody is editing it out, and I can't seem to figure out how to remove it.
:Someone added it top the military conflicts template. Gone now. Gillis 18:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm... WTF gives?! 

message: Okay these areas were indeed part of Russia and in that way were "liberated from germany" but i doubt anyone would say Germany would have liberated anything in case it would hae retaken land belonging to it in the end of the conflict.
I just think liberate is quite POV when what encyclopedicly is done is the action of retaking an area.
Gillis 18:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have a point there. I think "liberation" is more often used to refer to the taking of concentration camps. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, liberation is commonly used to refer to any formerly Allied area retaken from the Germans (not just concentration camps). It is commonly used in histories of Northwest Europe, for example. It's use in eastern Europe becomes sketchier due to conflicting territorial claims, especially in places like Poland, etc.Michael Dorosh 01:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but smolensk is in Russia afaik. I clearly oppose to using liberate for eastern european areas independent before the war that then became satellite states or such. And still i disagree on the use of Liberate here either. I oubt we can have a census on the definition "everything taken by the allied from germany or its allies during WWII was liberated", this is something that is probably commonly used in history writing in different countries, especially such that is intended for a national audience. But as we are writing an itnernational encyclopedia we should account on this.  If this definition was used it would be fair to say "eastern carelia was liberated by russia from Finland", which I doubt would be easily swalloed. I think wikipedia would need a common policy on this. Gillis 22:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There were endless discussions on the subject here and what emerged was that it was 100% okay to use the term for ethnically Russian territories, while the word applied to Ukraine, Baltic states, Finland and so on... is indeed disputed. The battle of Smolensk took place entirely in RSFSR, so there's no problem. The example of Finland is different, so don't compare them please. I'm not even talking about the fact that in Western literature tje word is used even for Poland or Ukraine. If you want to know all the details, read Talk:Battle of the Dnieper and the two archives, but prepare for a long read beforehand :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberate vs. Retake 

message: The infobox and the intro both give "Second Battle of Smolensk." Why isn't that the title of the article. It might be too cumbersome to move this while its on the mainpage, but is their a reason why the title is Battle of Smolensk (1943). "1943" should also appear somewhere in the first sentence or at least first paragraph. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MILHIST#Naming conventions.  While terms like "first" and "second" are commonly used in article text (when the context of a particular war is present), years are preferred for disambiguation in titles.  (In this case, we have Battle of Smolensk (1941), Battle of Smolensk (1812), and a bunch of others to disambiguate with.  Having "Second Battle of Smolensk" as a title—where the context of WWII would not be present—would be very confusing.) Kirill Lokshin 18:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Rokossovsky quotation in the "Main breakthrough" section is irrelevant. His front didn't take part in the operation "Suvorov".  Central front of Rokossovkij was busy in the Battle of Dnieper, mentioned earlier in the article. 22:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the strict sense of the term you're right. However, first, the operation aimed at clearing the Orel Salient and the Operation Suvorov were pretty much interrelated. Second, Rokossovsky was not limited to his own front and his memoirs largely mention the operation Suvorov as well. A front commander had to know more than his own front. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the point - the quotation would be relevant in the article about Kursk battle, part of which was the operation "Kutuzov" (cleaning up Oryol salient). I'll tell you more - Rokossovskij himself found suitable to tell about this in "Operation Citadel" chapter, where this quotation is from.Fat yankey 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a wiki, so you're welcome to fix anything you can think is out of place. :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rationale first. Fat yankey 03:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant quotation

message: It seems to me that many of these references are only available in Russian. If so this should be noted in the References section. For example the only reference in English to "Nikolai Shefov Russian fights, Lib. Military History, Moscow, 2002." is at Recent Acquisitions: January 2007 "Shefov, N. A.  Bitvy Rossii / Nikolai Shefov.  Moskva : AST, 2002." and it is in Russian not English. If the cited books are in print in English then there will be ISBN numbers which can be added to them. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Hi gang. As you can see I have made some changes. Please do not panic. If this is FA quality article then by the time its finished they will have to invent a new category a bit higher ;o)
Not that I do not appreciate the work and effort that has gone into the article so far, and at least its here. However there is a drive to add Soviet operations and update them, and also add Soviet Armies and Corps (and divisions). I would also like to add more detail on the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe side. Actually I got here because of the partisan operation Concert that was completely left out of the article despite its significant. PLEASE lets talk before you edit or undo anything--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update and revise 

message: Would like to hear from the person who did the maps for this article--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  maps 

message: This was a general region of combat operations, and roughly corresponds to the Eastern European Theatre of operations. The republics are political entities, and several operations were conducted simultaneously over territories of several republics. The best way to describe these are as Western USSR where they were large strategic operations.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western USSR 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Smolensk (1943). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525020822/http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html to http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_dec43.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed RM. (non-admin closure)  Colonestarrice (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Smolensk (1943) →  – The term "Battle of Smolensk" in reliable English language sources appears to refer exclusively (or almost exclusively) to the 1941 battle. Even searches like "Battle of Smolensk" "September 1943" return almost exclusively results where "Battle of Smolensk" refers to the 1941 battle. In contrast, "Smolensk operation" refers mostly to the 1943 operation with no results for the 1941 battle.  This article already primarily uses the term "Smolensk operation" and the article subject is not a single battle but rather an entire offensive operation. From Google Scholar it appears that most sources lowercase "operation". (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 November 2021