Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

A-Class review for Cold War now open

The A-Class review for Cold War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) now open

The peer review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 10:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) now open

The A-Class review for 51st Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for 5th Army (Soviet Union) now open

The A-Class review for 5th Army (Soviet Union) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of the Kalka River now open

The peer review for Battle of the Kalka River is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Space forces

Hi. Can anyone confirm what the abbreviations "MOM", "MO RF" and "MO SSSR" refer to with regard to branches of the Soviet/Russian space forces? Meus Nomen 15:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've figured out two. Just need help with MOM now. Thank-you. Meus Nomen 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has a relationship to Space Forces. The one I find reference to is Международной организации миграции which is International Organisation for Migration!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

During the Soviet Union days there was also the Министерство общего машиностроения СССР Ministry of Widespread Machine-building of USSR that may have had something to do with Space Forces.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Now Mrg says that, I've heard of the 'Ministry of Medium Machine-Building' which was responsible for building ICBMs - think it might be that. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the organisation which still operates most reconnaisance satellites, and used to operate Soyuz spacecraft prior to RKA taking over. Meus Nomen 08:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Buckshot06 must be right on this. Some of the industries represented build white goods, scientific instrumentation and other stuff. So, if the Space Station ever needs a new microwave, these guys can organise the item and the launch vehicle ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Army (Soviet Army) now open

The A-Class review for Army (Soviet Army) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of the Kalka River now open

The A-Class review for Battle of the Kalka River is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Most viewed articles

Some of our most viewed recent articles, at least in the area I look at, appear to be Red Army - the champ, at 49,000 times last month - and Russian Air Force - 39,000 times last month. Anyone interested in helping me improve them? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm always interested to help with the improvement of these articles. So, if you have any ideas or need any help, please contact me. Sorry for the late response! --Eurocopter (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find the number of views figure? Bogdan ^що? 15:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The tool is accessible via WP:MHSP, at the bottom. Buckshot06(prof) 21:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress now open

The A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of articles on Soviet divisions

I've taken the liberty of reposting some comments by user:Mrg3105 to me on how to organise articles on Soviet divisions. They really need more input by people than the two or three who have commented before. I would like to start a discussion which might create a consensus on how we should proceed:

Look, I really appreciate your work on the divisions. However, what you really need is multiple lists because the subject area is too large. There were not 400 infantry divisions created during the Second World World War, but many more. fully 50% of the pre-war divisions were reformed as 2nd formation, and many as 3rd. I guess you are going to think I'm being overbearing again, but I am going to suggest to you that what you need to do is write an article on types of divisions in the Red Army, and have in-article links to each division-type list. I will help you to expand the article, if you need my help, but this would be an article and not a list, preferable showing development from after the Civil War to creation of the the Soviet Army in 1947, which was a fundamental change. The lists are, I am sad to say again, not all that helpful. If a division of the 2nd formation needs to be mentioned in an operation article, it will invariably link to a division number entry, which operated elsewhere, or was even disbanded, so will only confuse the reader. (Mrg3105's comment)

My response is that it invariably leads to an article with all the division's formations - at least with the division articles that I have written. I've made every effort to include all formations of the division in question, so some info on 2nd, 3rd or 4th formation is there. Buckshot06(prof) 00:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to point this out to you before, but you seem to just discard anything I say, maybe due to my insistence on using Russian sources that you can't verify. I appreciate this, and Roger has raised the issue, but fundamentally, as evidenced by Glantz's research done on German and Soviet archives, the Russian sources are not wrong, just "coloured" in the political overtones of the Soviet era, as was the US literature. In any case, think it over. (again Mrg3105's comment)

I would say not that it's a question of verifiability of Russian sources, as can be seen by the numerous translated Russian website info references which are part of the div articles that I've created. It's merely a question of presentation, and, thus, bringing it to a wider audience for discussion will hopefully allow us to build a consensus. Regards to all, Buckshot06(prof) 00:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Matvey Kuzmin

Does anybody know whether Matvey Kuzmin was a Hero of the Soviet Union? This is commonly believed, and in his article there is a photo from Partisanskaya metro station stating that he is. But I can't find any confirmation, including at the site [1]. The Russian Wikipedia doesn't even have a page for him. Any help appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress now open

The A-Class review for Kaunas Fortress is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Woody (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Russian and Soviet military history

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Soviet-German WWII operations

The longstanding and inclusive debates about naming Soviet-German WWII operations have been consolidated into one discussion, with a proposal to move 36 articles. As the outcome of the discussion will probably resolve this, all interested editors are urged to comment here.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This issue has now been resolved but individual articles may have point-of-view/balance concerns. It would be appreciated if editors could take a look at the articles with a view to fixing them. This also applies to the articles in Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note category renaming discussion

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_15#Category:Red_Army_generals DonaldDuck (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed moves of some Russian and Soviet submarine articles

In response to a discussion at WikiProject Ships, I have made a proposal to move several Russian and Soviet submarine articles to match the naming style outlined at WP:NC-SHIPS. Details may be found here. All comments are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to this proposal, there has been an alternative renaming proposal advanced. Both proposals would benefit from more opinions from all interested editors. The original proposal and the suggested alternative are both found here — Bellhalla (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Kostiuchnówka now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Kostiuchnówka is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

World War I

Hi How do we refer to the Russian Army of WWI ? is it Imperial Russian Army ? Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's correct Jim. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 15:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposals

Hello. There are proposals here and here to move many Soviet military equipment articles.--Patton^t/c 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Balaclava now open

The peer review for Battle of Balaclava is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^[pf] 13:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:37, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review for First Battle of Târgu Frumos now open

The A-Class review for First Battle of Târgu Frumos is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Eurocopter (talk) 15:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [2]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder but, with about 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.

Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.

 Roger Davies ^talk 06:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue - transliteration from Russian to English

More than a few entries in the overall category of Russian Military have included English transliterations that are all over the map. Since there is a central management effort applicable to the English language Wikipedia, let us establish a SINGLE transliteration convention that everybody can use. Once in force, this transliteration convention should go and fix all of the article titles that contain Russian names/terms transliterated into English.

An example of my issue: Russian - Александр Невский appears in Wikipedia as Alexander Nevsky, Aleksandr Nevsky, and Aleksandr Nevskiy. While link accommodations can be made for variant spellings (disambiguation) there should be a single transliteration convention that governs the name if used to title an article. In the preceding example, the convention that accounts for the Russian spelling is Aleksandr Nevskiy. I propose that the English Wikipedia consistently use the Russian transliteration convention used by the largest English language library - the Library of Congress.Федоров (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to standardize transliteration as well on the LofC system, but that can be a problem if the source material doesn't use that system. And correcting it can lead to hard feelings. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be about good information and not "feelings". Transliterated spelling are easily correctable. I'm sure there are enough people who can read Russian who look at/work on the English language pages to keep them in order.Федоров (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ezhiki is very conversant with WP:RUS, the convention for such usage. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue - Class names for Soviet/Russian naval ships, submarines, and aircraft.

Similar to the transliteration issue, the use of class names is getting out of control. As an online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should adhere to a standard of usage. Again, for disambiguation purposes appropriate links can be inserted. However, for the prevailing majority of Soviet/Russian ships, submarines, and aircraft the worldwide dominant usage in English for class names is the listing created by NATO. This is not to say that it is perfect. But it is the best that the non-Soviet world could do in the absence of real information. Also, the use of the name, when known, of the lead of class as the class name for submarines and surface ships is dominant worldwide practice.

An example, the lead unit of Russia's newest nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine is Yuriy Dolgorukiy. Following dominant usage, the class name should be Dolgorukiy class - or Yuriy Dolgorukiy class. In Russian usage the covername "Borey" is used for the entire weapons system - submarine and ballistic missile. It is not a class name. This follows the previously known "Typhoon".

I have seen a note from a user that he didn't like using the NATO names. I can understand personal preference, however, virtually all of the world's naval literature in English uses the NATO nomenclature when referring to Soviet/Russian naval platforms. Shouldn't Wikipedia adhere to dominant usage? Федоров (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So long as there's a redirect from one name to the other I'm not gonna get too worked up about this. I've had this argument over and over again regarding weapon names and the like and it really comes down to personal preference. But I wouldn't mind some sort of system like in WikiAviation where the official designation is given first and then the NATO codename is given in a specified format.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland

I have nominated Soviet invasion of Poland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Battle of Tskhinvali now open

The peer review for Battle of Tskhinvali is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Petlyakov Pe-8 now open

The featured article candidacy for Petlyakov Pe-8 is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Dürenstein now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Dürenstein is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Milhist outreach at Wikimania 2010

This year's Wikimania takes place in Gdansk, Poland, over the weekend of 9-11 July (details). Would you be interested in attending and helping prepare a Milhist presentation, explaining how our project works for the benefit of other editors from other wikis? It is also a great opportunity to meet up with other Wikipedians and Milhisters, and explore the city itself a little. This will be of particular interest to Milhist members living within easy travelling distance of Poland, though it is bound to attract interest from others living further away. This is at early discussion stages at the moment but we only need five or six people to make it happen!

If you might be able to help, or attend, please sign up HERE.

Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 09:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship now open

The A-Class review for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Battle of Dürenstein now open

The featured article candidacy for Battle of Dürenstein is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Petlyakov Pe-3 now open

The A-Class review for Petlyakov Pe-3 is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New Battle of Stalingrad template

I've created a template for the Battle of Stalingrad (see foot of the article). It is still at a rudimentary stage and if you would like to comment on it please visit the template talk page and add your comments there (Template talk:Battle of Stalingrad). Please amend the template, correct it and add whatever you feel is appropriate. The basis for inclusion is pretty much the frequency with which any of the items is mentioned in Beevor's book on the battle. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What about a mention of Mother Motherland Is Calling? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why not, nice idea. Ericoides (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for List of battlecruisers of Russia now open

The peer review for List of battlecruisers of Russia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 21:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship now open

The featured article candidacy for Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia now open

The A-Class review for List of battlecruisers of Russia is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidacy for Russian battleship Slava now open

The featured article candidacy for Russian battleship Slava is now open. Comments from reviewers are needed to help determine whether the article meets the criteria for featured articles; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring / advice request

I wonder if an editor from this project/task force could offer mentoring or advice to a novice editor User:Igor Piryazev, who appears to be having problems understanding some of wikipedias core policies. He appears to be Russian, so someone fluent in that language may have more luck than the multiple editors at Talk:Battle of Kursk. He is clearly eager and determined, but this needs to be tempered with understanding of wikipedia requirements. (Hohum ^@) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of Russia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of Russia/archive1 needs more reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review for Borodino class battlecruiser now open

The A-Class review for Borodino class battlecruiser is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 03:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A discussion needed regarding a general tendency in russian/Soviet articles?

I have transferred the following discussion from the general discussionpage of MilHist, because it was far mor relevant here. Please note that it is NOT my purpose to start any polemic arguments with russian, NOR it is on my agenda to in any way downplay russian/soviet victories. Neither do I have any agenda (whatever that may be) to elevate any other to the detriment of Russia/CCCP. Rather it is my desire to have an rational, academic, calm and KULTURNYI discussion of the points that have been stated in the following.

There is a strong push in all articles regarding Soviet and/or russian related battles and wars, in which the russian casualties are attempted to be severely downplayed. Furthermore there is a revisionist push for an acceptance of Soviet/russian pre-1991 explanations of foreign policy.

An example of this is the article regarding the war in Afghanistan where there is a push from Russian contributors to refrain calling it an invasion: "The Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan. Rather, it deployed troops in order to assist a regime whose regime was under attack by an externally supported and organised rebellion" and to calling the mujahedeen "external Arab invaders". Both of which is contrefactual and nonsensical.

There is also a MAJOR problem in the general tendency and bias where it is now a "Military stalemate and consequent withdrawal of Soviet forces". This war in fact was one if not THE pivotal points that led directly to Perestroika and Glasnost and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union in general and the Soviet Army in particular.

Also the numbers for the Soviet casualties seem WAY off: "Casualties and losses Soviet: 14,453 Killed (total) [3] 9,511 killed in combat [3] 2,386 died from wounds [3] 2,556 died from disease and accidents [3] 53,753 Wounded [3] 311 Missing Afghan Government: 1000+ Killed[citation needed]"

Firstly the numbers for the afghan government seems insanely low with 1000 killed being completely ludicrus, and secondly the general casualties seems COMPLETELY off when compared to the material losses:

Material losses were as follows:[3] "451 aircraft (includes 333 helicopters) 147 tanks 1,314 IFV/APCs 433 artillery guns and mortars 11,369 cargo and fuel tanker trucks."

Which means that LESS than one person lost their life for every piece of euipment lost in battle... Other figures can be seem here where they are FAR greater:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6737621/Soviet-Losses-in-Afghanistan Or here:

http://se2.isn.ch/serviceengine/Files/ESDP/16007/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/17E7754A-A217-4FAC-8D2F-9D4CF8E1144E/en/rp_26.pdf

Here the losses are something along the lines of AT LEAST 450.000 wounded russians.

Are we really to believe that a war that lasted for as long as the US´s engagement in Vietnam only cost a fraction of the same casualties:

US 58,159 dead;[7] 1,719 missing; 303,635 wounded[8]

This in spite of the fact that the US had FAR better medicinal and first-aid facilities...

There are similar problems on all other articles involving the soviet union/russian includin the one on the Winter war and the war in Chechnya.Nick-bang (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet KIA totals always seemed semi-reasonable to me because the Soviets never deployed anywhere near the same number of troops in Afghanistan as did the US in Vietnam, aside from the initial invasion forces. But the wounded numbers are way off.

Note, however, that the two sources you linked to combined wounded and sick, which may be the cause of the major discrepancy. Especially since I have a vague memory of some absolutely astonishing numbers of Russian sick, partially because of poor hygiene among the Russian troops.

We're having a similar debate over on the Battle of Kursk talk page and you may have to add notes to the article discussing the numbers, their sources, and their biases.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. However allthough I can consede to your point about the number of deployed tropps being dissimilar, then that does not explain the inconsistensies between the material losses and the casualties.

Also it still does not adress the Meta-problem around Russian readers trying to massively and concertedly redraw history to the nationalistic pre-1991 revisionist status. This is also a problem regarding the articles on Gulag, the history of the Baltic states and the Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff.

How can we and how should we react to that?Nick-bang (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this on the talkpage of Battle of Kursk, but it is equally relevant here:

To my astonishment I find this discussion resurfaces across WiKipedia, whenever and whereever Soviet and by extension Russian battles and wars are concerned. There is a tendency from russian contributors to downplay russian casualties, wounded and to portray many battles who are internationally and by a consensus in academia regarded as Soviet/russian losses and defeats into the exact opposite and at best as draw or variations thereof. It is something that is disturbing and annoying and if not handled properly, will cast into doubt every article in which Russia/Soviet union is a part. This was the case with the article on the Winter war where Russians tried to establish completely irrational and unrealistic low casualty rates for the Red Army. It is the case in the Article on the war in Afghanistan 1979-89, where russians are trying to establish the contrefactual and revisionist claim that it was not an invasion as well as posting completely unrealistic low casualty rates as well. The same can be seem across the articles with revisionist and sometimes pure pre-1991 Soviet propaganda finds its way into the articles. This includes allusion to the wild claim that the fall of the Soviet union was a conspiracy by NATO in general and USA in particular. As a writer it annoys me, but as a historian it deeply troubles me. The last time I saw a similar conserted effort to rewrite the facts to fit a specific political agenda was when Hitler and NSDAP rewrote the story of WW I to establish the myth of 1) german military invincibility and 2) Dolchstoßlegende ("dagger-stab legend") which claimed that the army, "undefeated in the field," had been "stabbed in the back" by civilian leaders and Marxists back on the home front. Now I am not looking for a fight or undue polemic debate - but it is a generic problem which is also very clearly here. And on a final note: Krivosheev is NOT infallible - he has produced much of the volume of his impressive work of figures previously confidential and from the Red Army. But that does not mean its accurate - by a long shot. Therefore the same procedures and techniques which any historical event should be subjected to so be applied liberally here. Which means that it is not the number of sources but rather their validity and international acceptance that should define their worth.Nick-bang (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)Nick-bang (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Nick-bang (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron now open

The peer review for 4477th Test and Evaluation Squadron is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 06:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A-class review for Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open

An A-class nomination of Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open. Any interested editors are invited to participate. Any input is welcome! Constantine ✍ 11:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Great Patriotic War"

There is again edit warring and discussion on the use of the term Great Patriotic War in articles related to or about the Soviet Union. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Great Patriotic War vs. World War II. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)