Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Archive 3

message: The Holocaust killed more soviets then jews 
The axis put them all in the same catagory; slaves to serve the master race. Jews and Bolsheviks were all treated as shit and often the Bolsheviks were treated worse.
And this is why removed the words "of the jews", just saying holocaust is correct but saying holocaust of the jews is wrong because it gives the illusion that only jews were affected by it which ofcurse is wrong
Deng 2005-12-10 12.30 CET
:He has a point. Plenty of Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals and other non-Jews were killed. --RaiderAspect 13:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And communists, esperantists, jehovahs witnesses etc. ;) - FrancisTyers 14:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Done Ksenon 23:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, that is a very good, but largely irrelevant, point. The holocaust is mentioned as an example, and states that it was not just the Jews who were killed. Admittedly, the Jews do not need to be singled out as separate from the 'other ethnic minorities', although it is fairly obvious that they were singled out in the justification and purpose of the excercise. -- Lordandmaker 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what happens when someones response to something said many motnhs ago, so let me tell you the probelm. The problem was it said holocaust of the jews, I removed the part "of the jews" and just left the word holocaust (Deng 03:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another myth is that the Holocaust killed only jews which is so wrong 

message: Here's a source: http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
Ksenon 23:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tthe truth is clear for all to see. Ksenon 20:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German losses 

message: Western Ukraine has never belonged to Moscow Russia, the more to the SU. The usage of the word "return" is biased. The SU wasn't a successor of Tsarist Russia.
Xx236 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to return the Ukrainian 

message: Title WAS: Stop adding internet sites as sources, i added one just to prove how dumb it is to use them as sources
Most FREE internet pages link to each like a big circle so useing one as a source is just dumb
Only use PAY sites as sources or school books or gouverment books because only those have a burden of proof FREE internet pages do not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.249.74.174 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 14 January 2006  (UTC)
:Actually, any site can put anything on the web--Sturgeon's Law definitely applies. Some free internet pages are quite well written and sourced, some pay sites are purest garbage. Sweeping generalizations serve no one.
:Burden of proof is not a scholarly distinction--it is a legal distinction, and (secondarily) a rhetorical distinction, meaning that the person who makes the claims must prove the claims. There is certainly no law stating that pay or government web sites MUST prove their claims.
:For my part, I'm not interested in where the information comes from: I'm interested in whether or not the information is correct. If it is correct, then I don't care what the source is.
:Justin Eiler 03:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Let's use this as our source. Also, let's keep the article free from emotions and encyclopedic. Ksenon 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World War II casualties]] 

message: Here are a couple ideas for resolving this dispute: 
1. The article is long anyway. Why don't we break it up so that it is a relatively short overview of the major campaigns and issues, and have frequent reference to more detailed articles? I know that was probably the original intent anyway, but it has grown to a detailed article. We might at least agree on what the major campaigns and issues are.
2. The separate articles could focus both on battles/campaigns (these articles already exist and some of them are darned good) and on important issues. For example, separate articles on atrocities/war crimes, industrial management, lend-lease, the war leadership of Stalin and Hitler, etc. would all make good articles on their own and would compartmentalize the content dispute into the few areas it really belongs. We should take care *not* to get deeply into those issues on the main page - just mention them. That way the main article can attain some stability.
3. There are a lot of good post-collapse-of-the-USSR books out there that provide much higher-quality information than was available even twenty years ago. We should relying primarily on these sources and not some of the postwar/cold war stuff that is much lower quality. 
Just a thought to break this logjam we're in. DMorpheus 20:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I give up. As long as user Deng is involved in this page it will be very low quality. DMorpheus 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, he's bent on forcing his POV. It was an article I hoped would reach FA status, with appropriate consultation, esp. the casualties section. It was a well-balanced, neutral article, at least until Deng's "Soviet martyrdom" edits, shifting the POV to the Soviet side. Ksenon 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: The war inflicted huge losses and suffering onto the civilian populations of the affected countries. Behind the front lines, atrocities against civilians in German-occupied areas were routine, including the Holocaust. German and German-allied forces treated civilian populations with exceptional brutality, massacring villages and routinely killing civilian hostages.
Does it not illustrate what was happening there? Your ranting and spewing lies at me and othe editors isnt serving your cause. Duplicating info in a POV manner is pointless. As for the colors, let's have something easier on the eyes- who agrees? Ksenon 21:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ksenon, I agree the tables are much easier to read with your modifications. The colors are more muted and the removal of the Japanese tank production column also helped. Japanese tank production is in no way relevant to the article. Once Japan got a bloody nose at Khalkin-Gol and then decided to attack the USA, the USSR faced no strategic threat from Japan. DMorpheus 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irving is listed as a source in your test page. I stand by my comment, but if you agree with me that that is a poor source, why not remove it? Do you also agree to stop personal attacks? You may not agree that re-casting the page as a high-level outline with frequent links to detailed articles is a good idea but let us see what others have to say. DMorpheus 01:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Deng wrote, "...sweden produced 2/3 of the axis iron ore.". That is not correct. Two-thirds of Swedish iron ore was exported to Nazi Germany. That supply represented about 1/4 of Germany's (not the whole Axis's) iron ore supply. See Tony Judt's book Postwar. Whoever was removing that content in the past was correct. DMorpheus 14:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is missing from this paragraph? 

message: Since the article is about the Eastern Front in general, why not just list the battles and stuff while having independent articles for those. Obviously, many different point of views are expressed here and none can be unprejudiced in the creation/moderation of a Nazi Germany page. 
What I proposing is that we try to take out as many details that are not necessary to the page and put them on a more specific article. Also, any type of subjective commentary should be taken out except for quotes because an article shouldn't have the writer's opinion but the truth.
:That's how it used to be, now the article is becoming cluttered and long. Ksenon 07:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deng, please take into account that your previous edits on this subject have resulted that many editors (incl. me) distrust your contributions on this subject. So please make sure that your proposals are devoid of sweeping generalizions, not too specific for this article, undisputed (or if disputed attributed opinions), and well sourced. Andries 14:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalization 

message: As for production, my source is following: 
Tank production 1940-1945 (self-propelled guns excluded, USSR's self-propelled guns from 1943 to 1945 included)
    	USSR  	Germany	USA   	Great Britain
1940	2794  	1469   	331   	1399
1941	6590  	3259   	4052  	4844
1942	24 668	4098   	24 997	8611
1943	24 000	6083   	28 497	7476
1944	29 000	8466   	17 565	2476
1945	25 448	988    	11 985	
Source: V.Shlykov, “The Tank Philosophy” in 'Mezdunarodnaya zhizhn' 1988. I quoted from my native language edition. 
Indeed, these figures are different from your sources, but its very likely that Russian authors have figures similar to those I've mentioned. I hope Meltyukhov's book contains information on tank production as well. Constanz - Talk 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Omitting self-propelled guns would be misleading, since the Germans relied so heavily on them. DMorpheus 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Self-propelled guns are excluded presumably for the simple reason  that the author was unable to get accurate information from archives which were mostly closed that time. But still a question arises: just as many other researchers of post-Soviet Russia, the author's figures of Soviet tank production are higher than estimations by Western researchers (and the table in the article.) Meltyukhov's data: Таблица 41. Военное производство в Германии и СССР  Constanz - Talk 13:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tank production 

message: Y'all have a use for this? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy  02:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Soviet flag on the Reichstag roof unaltered.jpg]] 

message: This is the taste page Talk:Eastern Front (World War II)/Proposed
Is there anything wrong with it?
If so exactly what, if not i say we use it andunlock this page.
If you want to add things that is fine but dont drift away first and before anything happens; is the test page good and can this locking problem be solved. Stop drifting away and focus on the problem at hand which is unlocking the page so no drifting untill the page is unlocked.
Deng 11-02-06 12.05 CET
Also if you look in this article Red Army and then look on the eastern front part they have made a very nice pice about it and with that pice in the Red Army article plus the test page I dont see any reason why this problem should go on.
(Deng 12:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Everyone needs to stop drifting

message: Has mediation been tried on this article. Or a request for comment? I think at this point that's what you guys might want to try since I don't see the sides moving. To request mediation, go to requests for mediation for formal mediation or mediation cabal if you want to do something more informal. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, a mediation might help guide things in the right direction. - FrancisTyers 05:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree some kind of intervention is needed. I've been mulling it over for weeks but wasn't sure which of the several options would be most productive so I haven't tried any of them. Anybody have experience of the process and opinions about what would be best for this situation? DMorpheus 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Um actually it's not. You just go to either request for mediation or the mediation cabal page. I try to get away from this page but I feel like I'm almost mentoring here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Deng, you are misreading it. That warning is saying that any request that does not meet the RFMR FORMAT will be rejected. That does not mean that everything on the page needs to be tried. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why dont you  make request?
(Deng 10:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I think it should be expanded in the intro e.g. as follows:
:The term Great Patriotic War appeared in the Soviet newspaper Pravda óne day after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, in a long article titled "The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet People" (Russian: Великая Отечественная война cоветского народа). The term War Against Aggression was used by the Soviet Union before the involvement of the United States and Japan. Under Brezhnev the term of the Great Patriotic War was promoted as a means of propping up the fading founding myth of the Great October Revolution and the waning interest in Lenin. Gradually, the term acquired a new stereotyped image and this engineered vision of the war was passed to the Soviet people as their "collective memory". Now the term is used mainly in the Commonwealth of Independent States (except Estonia where the term is officially forbidden and Uzbekistan which prefers to use the term World War II ). Brandmeister 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, what (mis)information one has acquired! except Estonia where the term is officially forbidden -- Firstly, Estonia has never been a member of CIS, and secondly, no-one has forbidden the use of such phrases: Estonians simply do not use them, as this war was in no way patriotic for us; but the Russians living here naturally use the phrase just as they do in Russia. Please strike through this erraneous information through by using , or simply remove it. The source says nothing about Estonia, and I live there and know how things are Constanz - Talk 15:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for CIS membership :)) Anyway concerning forbidden term I read e.g.  http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php4?st=1109017680 ("В Эстонии официально запрещен термин "Великая Отечественная война" - The term Great Patriotic War is officially forbidden in Estonia) and http://www.newsru.com/world/21feb2005/no_war.html ("Эстонские чиновники запретили термин "Великая Отечественная война" - Estonian officials prohibited the term Great Patriotic War). Brandmeister 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Patriotic War term history