Talk:Continuation War/Archive 16

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions about Continuation War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Original research in this article

For third opinion.
This is from a section[1] in this article:

On 31 August, Finnish HQ ordered the offensive to halt at a straightened line just past the former border.^[63] However, according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day,^[64][65] although the war diary of the Finnish 12th Division facing the settlement^[63][66] does not mention the fighting and notes that it was quiet at the time^[66]^{[improper synthesis?]} while the neighboring 18th Division had orders on the morning of 4 September 1941 to form a line of defensive north of N. Beloostrov.^[67]^{[original research?]} Neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War mention fighting at N. Beloostrov on 4–5 September 1941.^[68]^{[original research?]}'

Is this original research or not?

Does it violate the synthesis part of the WP:OR rule (Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources...)? What about the part on primary sources (Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.)?

Can a user go through military records and other sources to decide what divisions were near a location and what they were doing, and then imply a conclusion in the article that nothing really happened (contradicting sources that directly say the event happened). Or should that be left to historians, to secondary sources that directly make this conclusion?
To me, the part in bold basically says "I did not find any evidence of it, so it probably did not really happen."

References #s 63, 66 and 67 are primary sources (war diaries).

I am not sure if reference # 68 is a secondary source, but it does not explicitly state that there was fighting or that there was no fighting. -YMB29 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Assuming that these war diaries have been published, and there's no obvious reason to suppose bias, then I don't see that there's a problem with using them as sources per se. However, I don't think that we can draw conclusions based on what they don't say, rather than what they do. That, I think, would be a matter for secondary sources, and to do so ourselves would be improper synthesis. If a reliable source specifically states that it was "quiet on that day" that may be okay to mention, but to infer that a failure to mention an action implies that that action did not occur seems to me to go beyond what the source itself says. For that you would need a reliable secondary source that draws that conclusion. We could then say something to the effect of "according to source X..." since there is apparently also contradictory evidence elsewhere. On the other hand, if the diaries are unpublished, or there are good grounds to suppose them unreliable, then they can't be used at all. Anaxial (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

War diaries are published both online as well as existing as hardcopies (printable on request) fulfilling requirements for 'reliable source'. War diaries are not used to state anything beyond what they are saying. And the secondary source is used exactly in the form WP:3O described above. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If, indeed, the war diaries say words to the effect of "there was no fighting on that day", then I, for one, can't see an issue with stating that. However, I do think some re-wording of the article may be required, since at present it implies that the war diaries simply "make no mention of fighting", which isn't the same thing as stating "there was no fighting", and I don't think we can draw conclusions from what they fail to mention (unless, of course, the secondary source does so). So I'd reword it to focus on what they do say, rather than making it appear as if we're drawing inferences based on what they don't. The "it was quiet at the time" part, for example, is to my mind phrased correctly. The rest, not so much. Anaxial (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The part that says "it was quiet" is mentioned after the "although", so it implies something... Don't you think so?

Is not it similar to the example in WP:SYNTH : The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. -YMB29 (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to the removal of the "although". But if it's reasonable that they have would have noticed the fighting, and they specifically say that they didn't (rather than just not mentioning it), I can see that that might be relevant. On the other hand, the part about the 18th Division having orders to be elsewhere, could be said to be drawing an improper inference, unless it specifically says that they were elsewhere, since, in a war, there might be all sorts of reasons why circumstances prevent one from carrying out orders to the letter. Anaxial (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions being made...

How do we know that only the 12th division could have been there. It could have been the other one or units of a third. Also, reconnaissance units could have been sent to the town, while most of the division stayed back, and so "it was quiet" may refer only to where most of the division was located.

The entries about the fighting could have been omitted from the diaries for political reasons (Finland said it would only take its territory back from the Winter War and the town was never part of Finland).

I would think historians have to do this research and sort these things out, and we should not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source[2]. -YMB29 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Because there are reliable secondary sources stating that the unit was there, just like they remark that 18D was north of the village of Valkeasaaren asema (N. Beloostrov) - both of their locations are verified by several of secondary sources, and even accurate enough to denote the regiments facing the settlement, 47th Infantry Regiment (of 12th Division) on the west bank of Rajajoki river (Valkeasaaren asema was on the east bank) and 6th Infantry Regiment (of 18th Division) to the north of the Valkeasaaren asema. All that is verified by several secondary (as well as primary) sources.

Problem from the start is that there ain't any mentions of any Finnish unit being involved in a fight at the location in question at the specified time - if there would be unit ID of any kind it would be trivial for me (or to any one) to see how it fared but there ain't any. As it stands we have apparently magical Finnish unit since it does not appear in war diaries or secondary sources nor are there any mentions of it elsewhere since both Finnish units neighboring the locality are accounted for (as are their actions - both dug-in). And your guess about political motives is far fetched. The neighboring 'Valkeasaari' (S. Beloostrov) was never part of Finland yet fighting there is prominently presented in both primary and secondary sources.

I have repeatedly stated that the whole section regarding Valkeasaari (for either side) has no place in this article but you have refused to remove it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no place for your personal research. What you are doing is analyzing and synthesizing, which is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you or did you not read the section which noted that there are several secondary sources identifying explicitly the Finnish units in the area? Also you still have not answered as to why you insist on including such a matter into an article discussing the whole of the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it is relevant to the section... Those secondary sources explicitly say that only certain Finnish units were there? What you need is a secondary source that says there was no fighting there on the dates in question. -YMB29 (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Those secondary sources do explicitly say exactly which units where at that location and since the note locations of all other Finnish units in the area as well. So yes, they say that only certain Finnish units were there. Once again what you are performing with your demand is a logical fallacy - in other words a circular reasoning - since if nothing took place nothing would have been recorded. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing took place according to your OR. Reliable sources say otherwise... -YMB29 (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources also note that both Finnish units facing the N. Beloostrov held their positions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So what? -YMB29 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So which Finnish unit supposedly fought in the location? Is it perhaps your magical Finnish unit that does not exist in any of the secondary sources or primary sources describing the Finnish troops in the area? - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not our job to figure out what units were there or not there, and which ones did what. Leave that to secondary sources, as you were told above.

If you don't have a source that directly makes the conclusion that nothing happened, there is nothing to discuss.

Let others comment... -YMB29 (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

None of the secondary sources describing the fighting in the area in detail describe fighting at Valkeasaaren asema (N. Beloostrov) at the time in question. Finnish 'Chronology of the Continuation War' doesn't, 'Jatkosodan Hyökkäystaisteluja 1941' doesn't... Yet they all describe in great length the fighting at that exact same time as Valkeasaari (S. Beloostrov). - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Another OR in this article

Another part of the same section from the article since YMB29 choose to selectively quote content from the article:

On 31 August, Finnish HQ ordered the offensive to halt at a straightened line just past the former border.^[63] However, according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day,^[64][65]^{[original research?]}

Reference #64 is only discussing locality called Beloostrov without specifying which of the 2 it is discussing (S. Beloostrov and N. Beloostrov) while reference #65 is a primary source (a second hand account from a personal diary). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep your accusations in this section. Don't edit my posts or add to previous comments to try to confuse users who might give a third opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Another discussion regarding OR

The statement (However, according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day.) is directly supported by sources. There are no interpretations:

Russia at War, 1941-1945, by Werth:

page 228: In the north, on September 4, the Finns occupied the former frontier station of Beloostrov, twenty miles north of Leningrad, but were thrown out on the following day.

page 265: There is also no doubt that the Finns did, at one moment, push beyond the old frontier, since they captured the Russian frontier town of Beloostrov only twenty miles north-west of Leningrad; here, however, the Russians counter-attacked, and the Finns were thrown out on the very next day, after which this part of the front was stabilised.

Through the Siege, by Luknitsky (page 58):

Novyi Beloostrov was captured by the enemy on September 4 and retaken by us the next day, but three days ago, on September 11, it was in the hands of the enemy again.

Soviet 23rd Army report:[3]

On the night to 9/5/41, the enemy broke into Novyi Beloostrov and our units were fighting him there until 12:00, 9/5/41 when Beloostrov was finally cleared of the enemy and was in our hands.

Please remove the OR tag. -YMB29 (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep your OR in this section. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Issue here is that you need to have sources explicitly stating that something took place. Werth never discusses of N. Beloostrov despite of your repeatedly attempts to depict him as doing so, in fact by doing the conclusion that the writer means 'N. Beloostrov' when he is referring to just 'Beloostrov' is already OR in itself. As seen from the discussion from Reliable sources noticeboard 'frontier station' can not be explicitly understood as meaning 'railway station' - which already means that your conclusion is OR.

Luknitsky's account is a personal diary (or journal) - i.e. a non-official primary source - on how the he perceived the events. He notes in the preceding entry that the information regarding 'N. Beloostrov' is a second hand account - i.e. information that he had learned of.

23rd Army's report - again a primary source - only notes that Finns broke into N. Beloostrov on 4 September and that fighting there ended on 5 September. Rest of the statement handles 'Beloostrov' instead of N. Beloostrov. Which can be understood as referring to either of N. Beloostrov of S. Beloostrov, fighting at the time at the S. Beloostrov is well documented. Since it is a primary source you can not make any conclusions or analysis from the source so you can not conclude that it would be referring to N. Beloostrov in the second section. As you so quaintly put it earlier, that is a job for historians not for wikipedians. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have explained your ridiculous claims about this on the RS noticeboard.

Your claim that the same sentence can refer to two locations by the same name is just beyond ridiculous, and proof of how desperate you are. -YMB29 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Issue is rather crucial since there are several secondary sources documenting fighting at S. Beloostrov at exact time in question. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would the same sentence mention S. Beloostrov when it is talking about N. Beloostrov? -YMB29 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? We can not conclude it either way. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no conclusions needed, just basic comprehension of sentences... -YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A bit wrong, source specifically discusses a 'Beloostrov', not N. Beloostrov. And making conclusions beyond that is already OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So it starts talking about N. Beloostrov then abruptly decides to mention S. Beloostrov in the middle of the sentence... This is embarrassing for you. -YMB29 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A wrong as usual from you. I didn't state that it would be discussing S. Beloostrov in the middle of the sentence. Just that since it does not discuss N. Beloostrov in the sentence we can not conclude that it would be doing so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You are implying that it is talking about S. Beloostrov, since obviously that is the only other Beloostrov...

It does discuss N. Beloostrov, read again. -YMB29 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It discusses Beloostrov, not S. Beloostrov or N. Beloostrov. And since it is a primary source we can not conclude it either way. That is exactly what is stated in WP:OR (actual rule), WP:NOTOR, WP:USEPRIMARY (supplementaries). - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, this is not a conclusion but a simple comprehension of the sentence. If you can't comprehend it, I can't help you... -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be if the source would not be specifically stating 'Beloostrov' in the middle. However as it does state so we can not disclose as which Beloostrov it is referring to since doing conclusions on primary sources is not permitted. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It starts with N. Beloostrov, so of course it means N. Beloostrov in the middle... If this is OR for you, that is just laughable... -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It may refer to N. Beloostrov however by stating "so of course it means" you have already concluded something from a primary source what it is not saying. Which makes it OR according to wikipedia policies - not to me. I might even agree that it would refer to N. Beloostrov but as was so nicely put earlier, consensus can not override wikipedia policies. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no OR here, unless you think reading and understanding a sentence is OR... You are just being disruptive... -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that the source does not disclose which of the Beloostrovs it discusses. Since it is a primary we can not do that conclusion either. You already already showed that you have made the conclusion, and hence the OR, regarding the statement with the "so of course it means" - while the source does not actually disclose that matter.

There is already other discussion going on around this topic so could you please drop either one and just keep the discussion in one single talk page? - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask on the OR noticeboard if this is OR? It would be interesting to see the responses... -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to do so feel free to post the issue to the noticeboard. Nothing so far indicates that it is anything but a conclusion from a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You are making the ridiculous claim so you post it. -YMB29 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You insist on action that breaches the WP:OR so if you want to try to get your opinion verified go ahead and appeal for it in the noticeboard. However currently there is nothing i need to do since your conclusion already violates wikipedia's rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You claim that it is OR, so prove it... -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already done so, it is a primary source and you have openly stated that you have made a conclusion from it. It does not matter if you describe with some odd name, you 'comprehension' of 'Beloostrov' and 'N. Beloostrov' is already conclusion of its own. And you made it on a primary source, which makes it OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You have only made a ridiculous accusation. The sentence says that there was fighting in N. Beloostrov until the next day when Beloostrov was cleared. If you think that the last mention of Beloostrov refers to anything but N. Beloostrov, then either you are purposely making up an argument to deny the obvious or you are unable to comprehend a simple sentence in English. -YMB29 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The source you refer to (23rd Army's report) is solid for stating that there was fighting in N. Beloostrov at the time as per wikipedia's rules, however it is not valid for stating that Finns would have been driven away from there - since while being a primary source it refers to 'Beloostrov' in that section and according to wikipedia's rules we can not conclude that it would be referring to N. Beloostrov. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if you still think it is a conclusion after I explained it to you many times, I don't know what to say... Go ask others about this if you still think it is OR. -YMB29 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

All you have explained is that you made a conclusion from a primary to an article. Which happens to be OR, should you want to argue then feel to complain to relevant noticeboard and ask for their opinion, until they state that it would not be OR we ought to be following wikipedia's rules from WP:OR which state that any conclusion from a primary source is OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, you are making the absurd claim, so prove it. Have others comment on it. -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is your OR so if you want to get it proven then do so. Wikipedia's rules for such events however is quite clear since no conclusions can be made from a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are claiming that it is OR, so it is up to you to prove it. -YMB29 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing unclear regarding the matter, you made a conclusion from a primary source and that is it. It is up to you to show that wouldn't be OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, that is ridiculous. Are you going to ask for a third opinion or not? -YMB29 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need since any conclusion, regardless how blatantly obvious it would be, from a primary source is OR. Since the source in question does not explicitly state of which of the Beloostrov named villages it refers to you can not make that conclusion for or from it either. Take it up to noticeboard or 3O if you want to. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It is simple. Either you prove your claim or you drop it. -YMB29 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It is equally simple to prove it: WP:PRIMARY

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source... (referenced to, not referenced with)

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. (claim that Beloostrov would refer to N. Beloostrov fails at this)

Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. (again, you are interpreting that reference to Beloostrov in the source must mean N. Beloostrov)

In short it is all in wikipedia policies. If you don't agree with the said policies, well that is another matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You just wanted to show off that you can quote rules?

Yes, you can quote rules, but you showed that you are unable to understand them or knowingly misuse them.

You have to prove that it is OR, just like I proved your OR with a third opinion. However, given the ridiculousness of your claim, I can understand you not wanting to ask anyone about it... -YMB29 (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous about the case. You are making a conclusion based on a primary source. Which makes it OR. If you want to have another opinion on it then go ahead and post on the noticeboard or ask for third opinion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that this is your problem? -YMB29 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

To be precise if you want to use that source to back up the claim you mentioned then it is solely your problem. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Even if I wanted to use that source, it would still be your problem. -YMB29 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Northern Shield of Leningrad: The Karelian Fortified Region (1928-1995), by Nazarenko:[4]

On 4 September units of the Finnish 18th Infantry Division (commanded by colonel A. O. Pajari) crossed the Sestra River, occupied the railway station of Beloostrov and captured an artillery bunker that was located on the shore of the Serebryanyi Stream (300 meters from the Sestra River)...

On 5 September the station was retaken by a counter-attack of the 1025th Rifle Regiment (commanded by I. I. Shutov) of the 291st Rifle Division.

-YMB29 (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the 'artillery bunker' was on a small hill on the shore of the Serebryanyi Stream then Finnish sources likely agree with that part of the statement statement (hill is called 'public school hill'). Another relevant map: http://digi.narc.fi/digi/view.ka?kuid=4961514 p.592, '11.K:n alkuperäinen tavoite' (original objective of 11th Company) is the stream (Serebryanyi) and '11.K:n uusi tavoite' (new objective of 11th Company) that includes the 'public school hill'. From same document (online version) p. 579-580 (which are also p. 28-29 of III/JR6 war diary - same as 3rd Battalion of 6th Infantry Regiment) - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

4.9. ...Regiment's commander gave the order to advance to the stream 1/2 km north of N. Beloostrov in the direction of Aleksandrovka
0900 Stiff resistance but the objective was reached by 1100 with support of the artillery and infantry heavy weapons. At this time it was noticed that a small hill (referred to in the source as 'public school hill') just south of the stream dominated the nearby areas and had to be taken as well.

1500 New objective taken.

From same source, order by the commander of the 18th Division - http://digi.narc.fi/digi/view.ka?kuid=4961148 (p. 206-207) defines the front line on 4 September 1941 after that attack by the III/JR6 as follows:

3. Our regiment (excluding I/JR6) mans the 'Aleksandrovka section' (of the front line)... ...Edge on the right: Begins from Rajajoki (River Sestra) at roughly 1 km north of the railroad bridge and following the stream east from there...

So according to both to the war diary of the Finnish battalion (3rd Battalion of the 6th Infantry Regiment) responsible for the direction just north of N. Beloostrov and according to the war diary of its' parent unit, or the 6th Infantry Regiment, the Finnish front lines did not run further to the south from the stream in question (Serebryanyi) than extending to cover the 'public school hill'. And run 1/2 to 1 km north of the N. Beloostrov on the 4 September 1941 following the Finnish attacks. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:PRIMARY again: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. -YMB29 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Only part in the above which did 'analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate' material was a statement that Serebryanyi stream runs 1/2 to 1 km north of the village of N. Beloostrov. Mostly since it is issue of geography. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole post consists of your analysis and interpretations... -YMB29 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, actually citations to the sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Which you analyze... -YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Describe how, please. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So according to both to the war diary of the Finnish battalion.... responsible for the direction just north of N. Beloostrov and according to the war diary of its' parent unit.. the Finnish front lines did not run further to the south from the stream in question (Serebryanyi) than extending to cover the 'public school hill'... -YMB29 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And what in there was out of what the source stated? I could take the note regarding 'public school hill' out - i.e. did not run south of the stream in question (Serebryanyi). - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That whole part was your conclusion based on the quoted text. -YMB29 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the text states that front line runs along the stream which flows down to River Sestra around 1 km N of N. Beloostrov. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So what? You are implying that this means that there was no fighting at the train station. -YMB29 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is only stating that the Finnish front lines were at the stream. It does not state anything beyond that. Just because it conflicts with your source it is not implying anything. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The way it is in the article now, it is implying a conclusion... -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There being conflicts between sources is not the same as 'implying a conclusion'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Go read WP:SYN. -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, just because it opposes your point of view does not mean that it would be implying any conclusions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my view. Did you read it or not? -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are willing to take part into serious discussion regarding the claimed and actual OR in the article then please say so. Flinging accusations does not help any one. Instead of trying to undermine opposing viewpoints it would be far more constructive for you to take actively part to improve them instead of trying to discredit them. For example:

However, according to Soviet sources the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day,[64][65][66][original research?] - [64] or Werth does not explicitly state that it would have been railroad station nor does it specifically identify the locality as N. Beloostrov so using it as a claim for that statement is OR. [65] or Luknitsky's source on the other notes, just preceding the comment you used as a source, to state that it was a second hand account. [66] is the war diary which also omits accurate reference as to if it was N. Beloostrov the Soviets captured or not, and since it is a primary conclusions on it are out of bounds.

Which comes back to what can be attributed to the sources and what can not be. Only Luknitsky's account can do so but when doing so it needs to be attributed accordingly, for example: However, according to Soviet war correspondent Luknitsky Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day,[65]. Since that was the only one of the three sources which actually supported the statement. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, do you realise you have been engaged in interpretation of primary sources? That is exactly what our policy prohibits explicitly. All statements that are supported only by war diaries, or similar primary sources, must be removed from the article, and the text should be modified accordingly. (Since the diaries you are referring to are in Finnish or Russian, they hardly can be used to support even descriptive statements, because the ability to read Russian or Finnish is a special knowledge for an ordinary English Wikipedia user.)

Werth, Luknitsky and Nazarenko are secondary sources, although only the first one is good. If the statement in question is supported by these sources, it is not an original research.

Jatkosodan Historia is also a secondary source, so if the current text is supported by this source, this is not an original research. However, if this book does not say explicitly there were no fighting, the statement "Neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War mention fighting at N. Beloostrov on 4–5 September 1941" is a pure original research.

Regarding that:

"According to Russian historian Nazarenko the Finnish units were not able to advance further[66] however Finnish troops had already previously on 31 August received general order to halt their offensive after reaching positions favorable for defense."

I recommend you to compare it with a classical example of synthesis from our policy:

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

I recommend you to read this policy again, and fix the sentence.

War diary collection. National Archives Services of Finland, is a primary source, so to write based on only this source would mean to do original research.

And, finally, let me remind you that local consensus cannot override the principles of our content policy, so if you will not fix the issue in close future, I'll do that by myself. In that case, any attempts to revert me based on "no consensus" will be reported. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The last edit I made attempted to fix the issue, but Wanderer602 reverted it, so he is already knowingly violating policy here.

He just refuses to understand that he can't make conclusions from primary sources. -YMB29 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Werth does not (explicitly) discuss the location in question and Luknistky is a primary by definition since his work is a personal diary on how he perceived the events. In addition statement is not OR just because it would be supported only primary sources. They can be used if used with care and according to instructions set in wikipedia policies - for more information i recommend that you should read WP:OR with more care: Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them (emphasis not mine). As long as the statement is the same as what the source states it is no OR to use primary sources without any analysis or conclusions, and neither is translation of it, see WP:NOTOR despite of your allegations. By claiming that use of primary sources would be OR you are already yourself going against wikipedia policies.

Several opinions were requested for the case were nothing is stated and the feedback so far from uninvolved editors (which you yourself are not) was as follows: "However, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, secondary sources can only be used as justifications for assertions of this sort. Especially in these sorts of "facts by omission" points." and "If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource."

You do notice that if the statement is that the source (secondary) does not make any mention of fighting in the area at the time while the source itself would be relevant to the context it wouldn't then have been OR - according to uninvolved editors in any case. After all it is only a statement what the source which handles the events the area omits and is attributed exactly to the source in question. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is not clear from the reference if Luknistky is a primary or secondary. In any event, it is old and not the best quality source. However, that is not an excuse for ignoring the criticism. I pointed at some very concrete instances of original research, which must be fixed. If you have no counter-arguments, please, do that. If you have some counter-arguments, please, present them now. The references to unnamed uninvolved editors are irrelevant: obviously, their uninvolevement is so comprehensive that amounts to complete ignorance of our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Misinterpreting third opinions again are you?

The user who said "If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource" at the OR noticeboard was himself unsure about the OR rule (read the archive links I gave you).

Why did you ignore the recent third opinion in the above section?

How many users have to tell you that you are guilty of OR?

Your response so far has been to deny it and counter claim by accusing me of OR, using the most absurd arguments. -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Luknistky is a primary since it is a personal diary. By definition. Paul, I thank you from your feedback and welcome your suggestions on how to improve the article but i would request that you first post here on what you are planning to edit on the article so that we can be clear and hopefully even agree upon the changes before they are committed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I myself am not planning to do anything, I assume your good faith, and I expect you to fix the issues described in my above post. I think my explanations are clear enough. However, if, for some reason, the issues will not be fixed, I'll change the article accordingly, and I don't think any consensus is needed to fix obvious violations of the policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm requesting you to give feedback on how you propose they ought to be fixed so that there wouldn't be any further issues. Your explanations have no such information included with them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost missed this, there is one rather glaring error in Paul's assertion regarding OR in the article, namely: All statements that are supported only by war diaries, or similar primary sources, must be removed from the article, and the text should be modified accordingly - which contradicts wikipedia guidelines from "Secondary" is not another way to spell "good" (and continued further in "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad"). Which essentially only remarks that the Paul's assertion regarding primary sources was faulty and not in accordance to wikipedia's policies. Of the remaining two first one is still in the noticeboard and the last one is something for which i would value input. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Luknitsky was a war correspondent and his diary was published as a book. At the RS noticeboard you failed to prove that it is an unreliable source. He directly explains what happened, so I am not making any interpretations. How many times do I have to tell you this? -YMB29 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If Luknitsky was a war correspondent, then his book meets the same criteria we apply to, e.g. William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is still a personal diary regardless of the occupation of the author, which makes it a primary source. And i never stated that it would be unreliable source as a whole, what i did question was that is second hand hearsay from a primary source a reliable source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the difference between Luknitsky's records and the newspaper article? Actually, it is a primary source only in the part where the author describes his own personal experience. Does Luknitsky say he was a witness of the Soviet counter-attack?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that newspaper articles - if personal accounts - are also primary sources i can't see why you insist on a distinction. Luknitsky's whole book is a primary source as it a personal diary. And no, Luknitsky just stated that he suddenly 'knew' what had taken place during his trip back to the frontline (Что же здесь произошло? Я знал следующее. - ). - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So what? A reporter does not necessarily have to be a direct witness to an event for his information to be reliable. You contradict yourself and make no sense. -YMB29 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to be direct witness, no, but they generally still need to name from whom they learned the information from in order to be understood as reliable sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That is your own opinion, which is irrelevant here. -YMB29 (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That does not change his source from primary source into anything else. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So what? Who said anything about changing it? -YMB29 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have translated some non-Russian text back to Russian. "Что же здесь произошло? Я знал следующее" is hardly a correct Russian text. Literally, it means: "What happened there? I have known (or knew) the following," which implies the author knew some information by the moment the discussed events occurred. Judging by the context, the author meant "Я yзнал следующее". In other words: "I found out (or I learned, or I got to know) the following." In other words, the author, being a correspondent, performed some journalism investigation and came to some conclusion. That means that is a secondary source.

One way or the another, I pointed at some concrete issues, which have no relation to Luknitsky. You seem to ignore my criticism. If you will not remove OR from the article in close future, I'll do that by myself. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not translated back into Russian - it was a quote from the source. Also being personal diary the whole work of Luknitsky is a primary source. It still describes his personal account of - or how he perceived - the events. You only pointed to two issues (beyond your false claims regarding primary sources) of which one is still being discussed in a noticeboard and we should wait its resolution before taking action. For the last issue I already asked for your feedback or input as to how to improve it, however you have repeatedly refused to take constructively part into this. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You think anyone will read that section[5] on the RS board? You have failed to prove that Luknitsky is unreliable. -YMB29 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I never said Luknitsky's primary source would be unreliable, what i did question was the use of second hand accounts from a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Which is the same thing as claiming that Luknitsky is unreliable... -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it revolves around how the wording regarding the entry should be made so that the source is properly attributed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

What wording? If it was only him saying it, it would be according to Luknitsky... However, he is not the only source. -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be according to Luknitsky, since it was a second hand information - it was not his account of the events. Since it is a primary source it should be attributed accurately. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That is what he is reporting so it should be sourced to him. -YMB29 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

To be accurate that was something which 'he learned' not something that observed or concluded by him - and it should be attributed as such especially since we are discussing a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That does not matter. The information is coming from him and he is a reporter. -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

By his own admission it is not as discussed in this talk page - after all he stated that 'he came to know' that something had taken place - it should be attributed accordingly. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So what? Reporters don't always come to know everything by themselves. -YMB29 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That they do but their comments are usually needed to be attributed accordingly regardless - such sources being primary sources in general. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Then Luknitsky is a secondary source... -YMB29 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That it doesn't since Luknitsky's account as a whole is a personal diary, which makes it a primary source. By similar logic like applied above in your attempt to dress it as a secondary any higher level war diary would also be a secondary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the specific information provided. You keep saying that he got the information about the event from other sources, so then he is a secondary source, for this piece of information at least. -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No, since the whole work is a personal diary. See WP:OR:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

So no, the whole is still his account of the events (i.e. diary) and hence a primary source. For clarification see WP:USEPRIMARY. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A source can have both primary and secondary information: An author might write a book about an event that is mostly a synthesis of primary-source news stories (which is secondary material), but he might add occasional information about personal experiences or new material from recent interviews (which is primary material).[6]

However, whether it is primary or secondary does not matter, since you failed to prove that the information is unreliable and also it is supported by other sources. -YMB29 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Source can, yes. But the information acquired by the person in question, like Luknitsky regardless if he personally experienced it or not, is still a primary source. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, that does not matter. -YMB29 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wanderer602, I suggest you undo your last revert. -YMB29 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Since your edit introduced yet again OR to the article i see no point to do so before there is consensus over it. I would hope for constructive process instead of the unconstructive methods you have so far applied. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What OR I introduced? -YMB29 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For example you still had marked Werth and others as source for the intial claim - but more than that you did not even try to resolve the underlying issues. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I left your OR tag. You don't even know what you are reverting...

What underlying issues? Are you going to undo your revert yourself or not? -YMB29 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You further removed references to reliable sources from the text. As said if you approach this issue with mature and constructive attitude it is unlikely to cause trouble - so make suggestions on the edits and let's progress from that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole issue has not progressed much since 2011 because of you...

What references I removed? -YMB29 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So you can't explain your revert... If you mistakenly thought that I removed your OR tag and references, can you undo the revert?
You also violated 3RR[7][8][9][10], so it is better for you to undo it. -YMB29 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise nice try but the last one was not revert - if we go by the same rules you applied then following is true as well as it is equally valid to state that your edits violated 3RR as well [11], [12] (since it reverted some of the added content), [13], [14]. We can try to drop the edit war and continue advancing the matter amicably and in mature and constructive manner via the talk page should you want to, i am certainly willing to try. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So far you have not shown that you are willing to.

Adding a tag that was never there before is not a revert... Also, rewriting a section is not exactly a revert.

You also did not explain your revert, so you should undo it. -YMB29 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I already stated it, there did not exist any kind of agreement on it, and your edit removed reliable sources from the text. And if rewriting a section is not exactly a revert then one of 'my' reverts was not revert either. Its both or neither.

I haven't stated that i would be unwilling to take part into constructively editing the text but your actions of aggressively demanding OR removals with often misleading usage of WP:OR and other wikipedia rules in addition to rather uncivil attitude did not exactly help any. Propose changes, don't demand them; suggest how it could be improved, don't argue that any source opposing you must be wrong. Then we can have progress.- Wanderer602 (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been proven that you inserted OR. You can't just ignore feedback from other users.

Nothing is going to change until you understand what WP:OR is and what it is not.

Read what was stated above. A lack of consensus is not an excuse to ignore the policies.

I did not revert any reliable sources, check again.

You did not rewrite the section, but kept inserting the OR tags where they were removed, then you removed a tag that was there, and then did a revert of the whole section. -YMB29 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is because i didn't ignore feedback from several uninvolved editors that the current issue exits. There were several sources noting that Finns took the town on 10 September which you deleted from the source - just because you didn't like them does not allow you to remove them. Indeed policies can not be ignored, so Luknitsky remains a primary source, and your primary source regarding Beloostrov can not be concluded to mean either N. or S. Beloostrov. And you should really check the edits you marked, one of them added content regarding the claimed 'or' to clarify the issue. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That did not clarify the issue, but you removed the tag.

Well I did remove the chronology source, but that is obvious OR as the third opinion said. Also, I removed the part about the 12th Division, but I think you will agree that this is irrelevant now that the new source I added says it was the 18th Division.

I did not remove the Finnish explanation for taking the town. You still did not read the edit carefully...

Regardless of your ridiculous accusations about OR, I added a third secondary source which you simply ignore.

I am asking you one more time, are you going to undo the revert? -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Which only underlines that you knowingly removed reliable sources from the article. 12th Division still faced the village. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The new Russian source says that it was the 18th Division, so what is the point of mentioning the 12th? -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really since it still faced the village of N. Beloostrov. Also there is the secondary source provided by Whiskey which states that the JR6 (of the 18th division) stopped to the stream. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

And that source was not removed... -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is rather unlikely that it would have been removed since it hasn't even been included to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about the source on where the 18th Division was. -YMB29 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So was I, the secondary source Whiskey located has not yet been included to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So why did you mention it? -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it was relevant. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We were talking about what sources were removed... -YMB29 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wanderer602, it is disruptive to refer to WP:V during the OR dispute: no matter how reliable a source is, if you use it in an inappropriate way, it should be removed. Please, stop your argumentation and fix the issue, or do not prevent others from doing that. I demand the policy violation to be eliminated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to fulfill all three, V, NPOV and OR rules - at the same time. There being OR dispute does not allow WP:V to be ignored either. I have repeatedly stated that if you have suggestion on how exactly should the article be improved then please post it here. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean this your statement: "your edit removed reliable sources from the text." It is perfectly ok to remove a reliable source when it is being used to support original research. You correctly noted that all three content policies must be met simultaneously, so if one of them has been violated, the references to other two policies are irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of the removed references made by reliable sources in question were not used in support of any section of the text currently being discussed as possible original research. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul, this issue has been discussed extensively already in Talk:CW archive 13, and I wrote about Finnish secondary sources about this incident then: "First, in the book Kannaksen kahlaajat, JR6 jatkosodassa by E.I.Häkkinen, the end of the offensive is described as follows: "... then commander of the regiment ordered to advance along the (Aleksandrovka) road to the creek about 0.5km north of Beloostrov station. At 9 o'clock began the attack of the III Battallion. ...III B reached the target at 11. Then it was noticed, that the small hill south of the creek had to be secured, because it controlled surrounding terrain. ...At 15 o'clock the new target was reached." --Whiskey (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Location of this hill was at 60°08′58.2″N 30°00′47″E. At 4.30 September 5 Soviet forces began their counterattack agains III B, but it failed to gain ground. At 7.00 a new attack with an assist of three tanks, one KV-1 advancing from Beloostrov station, running through Finnish lines and finally stuck to the creek behind the Finnish lines. While Finns managed to hold the lines against the Soviet attacks, it took several hours before Finns managed to destroy the tank stuck behind their backs.

This account supports both the War Diary of JR47, book of "Suomen sota 1941-1945" and Soviet documents chastising front commanders from ineffective use of tanks. It also establishes the Finnish frontline at the sector, as we now know exactly where both 12D and 18D were located at the time relative to Beloostrov station. As Häkkinen's book describes also neighbouring units, it is clear that according the Finnish sources, there was no Finnish forces in Beloostrov station at September 4/5. --Whiskey (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)"

Front line unit designations are given both in "Suomen sota 1941-1945" and in "Kannaksen kahlaajat, JR6 jatkosodassa", and also their locations are given in both books, although "Kannaksen kahlaajat" presents the front line of JR6 in a more detailed way.

If you read the archive 13 in good faith, you understand that in reality our opposing candidates are not so far away from each other. Geographically. Also the pure logic works to the same direction: If Finns controlled Beloostrov station (N. Beloostrov), then why were JR47 front line positions facing the Russians placed both north and south sides of the western end of the railway bridge? Those north of the bridge would be facing Finns if Finns controlled Beloostrov station! --Whiskey (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I always read archives and talk page discussion in good faith, so this your notion is redundant. I have no desire to read the archive #13 (as well as any other archives), because, frankly, I do not care if there was an attack of Beloostrov or not. I analyse the text from purely formal point of view, and I see the following:

"On 31 August, Finnish HQ ordered the offensive to halt at a straightened line just past the former border.[63] However, according to Soviet sources..."

I do not care if the sources are good or bad, primary or secondary, but this "however" directly violates our policy: the only acceptable narrative would be "A source X says ... . A source Y says ... ." This violation of the policy must be immediately fixed.

the Finns advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day,[64][65][66][original research?]"

If at least one of cited sources say the Finns did advance, this is not an original research, and it is disrupting to add the tag. If none of these sources say that, the statement must be removed. In both cases, the text should be fixed immediately, however, taking into account that the tag says "original research", but "not in the citation", the former is more likely.

"... although the war diary of the Finnish 12th Division facing the settlement[63][67] does not mention the fighting and notes that it was quiet at the time[67][improper synthesis?]..."

The source 67 is a war diary, so it cannot be used to support this non-descripting claim. In addition, it is not clear what is the role of the source 63 (which statement it is supposed to support?). Again, this "although" is a direct and blatant violation of the policy (see above). Why that still has not been fixed?

"... while the neighboring 18th Division had orders on the morning of 4 September 1941 to form a line of defense north of N. Beloostrov[68] and the war diary of the Finnish 6th Regiment responsible for the Finnish 18th Division front line facing the N. Belootrov[63] notes that the regiment stopped after capturing a hill by a small stream north of N. Belootrov on 4 September 1941 as do the maps depicting the regiment's advance before and during 4 September 1941.[69][original research?]

The sources 68 and 69 are the war diaries, so this again is an original research. It should be removed immediately.

"Neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War mention fighting at N. Beloostrov on 4–5 September 1941.[70][original research?]"

The fact that some source does not mention some event is an indication that, most likely, this event had never occurred. However, this conclusion must be made in some reliable secondary source. The Wikipedians have no rights to draw such a conclusion. That is explicitly prohibited by the policy.

As you can see, I identified several violations of the policy without analysing what the sources say. That means that I am not taking sides in this dispute. If you see any inconsistencies in these arguments, please, explain, otherwise, let's stop this ridiculous dispute and immediately fix these obvious violations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

My response arose from the feeling, that you believed there were no Finnish secondary sources to use here, but only primary ones. I tried to point out that in archive 13 there were presented some.

You are correct to point out those occasions above as they are written. They are in clear violation of WP policy. But. They are written as an statement and counterstatement. For some of them there are secondary sources which could be used. For some... as statements are presented only from one participant of the conflict, there sould be some mention that it is not supported from the other side. We should improve the article, not hamstring it!

Both Wanderer and I have not been able to find even a single Finnish source, primary or secondary, which places any Finnish unit to N.Beloostrov at 4/5 Sep 1941. We have been able to find primary and secondary sources which name Finnish units along the frontline at that time, and also where the frontline positions of those units were, but we have not find a single source saying dirctly that Finns were NOT in N.Beloostrov then. We have been able to find primary and secondary sources which say that Finns observed Soviet forces moving in N.Beloostrov, but they don't state that there wasn't Finnish forces there. We have also been unable to find any quotations that Finns were not in Kronstadt, Moscow or Astrakhan. It seems we in Finland have taken it granted that there were no Finns in Astrakhan, Moscow or Kronstadt - or N.Beloostrov - as no Finn, not a soldier, not a general, not a politician or a historian has stated we were there.

It seems it was a Finnish unit with no designation, about which no information was given to it's neighbouring units, and which all participating soldiers never after the war mentioned they were there. Did Finns try to hide it? Why then few pages later explain how Finns captured N.Beloostrov a week later and held it another week before they were forced to retreat because of Soviet pressure. I hope somebody who tries to insert that to the article provides even a somewhat plausible explanation why. Maybe Russians know better where Finns were. Maybe they know better what our army organization were. Maybe there really was a SW Army in Finland, because there is not a single secondary source stating that there wasn't such an army. All the Finns have only stated what they thought was the organization according the documentation left by GHQ, corps and divisions. And as there waas no mention of SW Army, they naively believed there wasn't a one. Sheesh....

But this whole issue is ridiculous! In the article handling a war we are arguing did a one battallion capture a little village or not at a given day! It really doesn't belong to the scope of this article. --Whiskey (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, both you and Wanderer602 are missing the point. You are not historians to do your own research and establish what you think really happened, see WP:NOTTRUTH. If reliable sources explicitly state that the event happened and no sources explicitly contradict this, you cannot add your own conclusions (whether directly stating them or implying them) to contradict what the reliable sources say.

You also can't use NPOV as an excuse for your OR. -YMB29 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That does not prevent us from representing what the Finnish forces were doing in the area at the time according to Finnish accounts. And since you have insisted on including a pointless small scale fighting into an article describing whole of the war there are grounds for giving the opposing view on the same detail. Just because the Finnish accounts conflicts with your depiction of the events does not mean that it would imply anything. It is just as valid to state that your depiction of events implies that Finnish accounts are false - it goes both ways. Perhaps the section could be started with a note that there are conflicting accounts on what took place. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wandered602, could you please not to wedge your responces into my post? Please, remove your inserts, and combine them together in a separate place. What you have done is is against the talk page rules, and, in addition, if I'll try to respond in the same vein, the talk page will turn into a complete mess. I'll respond you only after you fix the mess you created.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Whiskey, I do not want to go into the factual details. Regarding the facts, you may be right or wrong, but there is one thing where you are definitely wrong. Scroll the talk page up and read the quote marked with the red cross. This example of unacceptable original research was taken directly from our policy page, and the text we are discussing follows the same flawed scheme. You cannot present this information as a statement and a counter-statement, and the policy says that unequivocally. The reason is simple: no secondary sources did that. By the way, there is another reason why you cannot do that: since the same information can be organised in two different ways ("A says X, however, B does not confirm that", and "B says Y, but the data from A do not confirm that"), the choice between these two versions gives more weight to one or another POV. Again, if no sources make such a conclusion, the "statement - counterstatement" concept is deeply flawed and it is not allowed in Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to be better to discuss each change in turn instead of prolonged post but if you want clustered up and hard to read text that can be arranged.

War diary is a primary source and can be used to support any statement made in the primary source if it is done without analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation. Source 63 is used to verify the location of the unit in question - since the secondary source in question did not discuss anything beyond units position. Since the statement that it was quiet (or peaceful, tranquil, calm, see Finnish: rauhallinen) is direct translation from the war diary so it is not OR. I can replace the 'does not mention fighting' with 'had no contact with the enemy'. Latter is again direct translation from the war diary.

Again, just because they are war diaries does not invalidate them as sources nor does it mark them as OR. 68 is accurate and not OR. I suppose i can change the text into 'Finnish frontline of the JR6 run after the attacks along the small stream north of N. Beloostrov' - since once again that is directly supported by the sources. However even the current text does not interpret nor evaluate the source (let alone analyse). Which as it happens is also supported by the secondary mentioned by Whiskey.

This was the exact issue for which outside feedback was previously requested and both of the persons giving the feedback (see talk page archives assuming you are editing in good faith) stated that if a reliable sources describing fighting in the are does not mention the fighting in question then it would not be OR to state so.

There. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul, you are absolutely correct about the policy, but in a way this section is currently written, it uses that unwanted scheme. By coldly removing a half would correct that situation, but it will make a stand which point of view we follow. The correcting this section shall not be smply making a stand which POV to follow, as it will lead to an endless edits and counteredits as both POVs are sourced. We have to find a solution which can stand. --Whiskey (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wanderer602, the two third opinions both confirmed what I was saying, and the first one did not tell you that OR with secondary sources is ok.
If you don't show that you are willing to understand basic policies (like WP:OR and WP:NOTTRUTH) and undo your last revert, at least partially, I will have to get admins to look at your behavior. This has been going on for too long and has gone too far... -YMB29 (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You removed text supported by reliable sources (for example: Finnish forces took the N. Beloostrov on 10 September 1941) without first trying to seek consensus over the change in the talk page. Which also happens to make your edit vandalism on that account. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Granted that i may have acted hastily when reverting the page but that was the statement i searched for in the new page (which i had just added) only to find that it had been erased without any explanations and drew the conclusion from that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You should not revert without understanding what you are reverting. So you have to revert it back.

The previous sentence already said The Finns took Novyi Beloostrov on 11 September...

Vandalism? So you are going to continue your disruptive behavior? -YMB29 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to first wait for feedback from NOR talk page since it is highly relevant to the matter. You made undiscussed changes (reasons for the changes were, but the actual edits were not) to a contested section of an article while removing citations to reliable sources from the text - so what else should it have been understood as? - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, the only source I removed is the one which could not be used in a way that does not violate WP:OR. The information about the 12th Division was also removed, since it was made irrelevant by the new source.

Once again, as you have been told, the removal of content that violates policies does not require consensus.

The discussion at the OR talk page is not relevant, since it is unlikely that the event would be declared as insignificant. -YMB29 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually information from 12th Division is not irrelevant since the division was still facing the village of N. Beloostrov unless of course you have sources stating that N. Beloostrov was not by the shore of River Sestra. It still discusses the location in question at the time in question.

Last i checked removing content - especially reliable sources - which did not violate policies did require consensus, and as it happens that was something what you also did with your edit. Discussion of N. Beloostrov in the context of the article has about the same relevance as discussing some random struggle for a hillock in article describing the whole of the Eastern Front. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Again that is your own opinion.

The part I removed did violate the policies.

If you think the other part about the 12th Division is relevant, you could have just inserted it back, without reverting the whole thing... -YMB29 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I do consider that part regarding the 12th Division to be highly relevant since its positions were much closer to the N. Beloostrov than those of the 18th Divisions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The new source says it was the 18th. You can include it, but I don't know how you can without it being OR. -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be OR to state what sources are saying? - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Because you are bringing up the 12th Division when no source is talking about it... -YMB29 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Catch is the section is discussing the N. Beloostrov and the 12th Divisions documents are also discussing that location. So while technically the 12th Division is not relevant the information from the other side of the river from N. Beloostrov might be. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixing OR

Do you understand now what cannot be in the article? For example:

According to Russian historian Nazarenko the Finnish units were not able to advance further^[66] however Finnish troops had already previously on 31 August received general order to halt their offensive after reaching positions favorable for defense.^[63]

Do you understand that the second part of this sentence is OR? -YMB29 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

If you give me one week, I'll produce 3-4 secondary sources from well known Finnish war-historians to cover the sentence: Finnish troops had already previously on 31 August received general order to halt their offensive... and two more to ...to River Sestra-Ohta-Lake Lembovo-line. --Whiskey (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that they received such an order is not being disputed. It is all about how you use this fact... -YMB29 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wanderer602, can you answer my question above? -YMB29 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

When Finns received this stopping order, they were advancing with speed. In fact only the first Finnish units had reached pre-Winter War border. And the advancement continued to the given line. And equally true is that Finns didn't even try to breach KAUR. --Whiskey (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not what the discussion is about... -YMB29 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, to me it looks precisely the same as the preceding "However, according to Soviet sources, units of the Finnish 18th Infantry Division advanced and took the..." - which also implies to a conclusion. And according to the same rules is then OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That was not the question... I can explain why it is different later, but it can also be edited.

Can you answer the question? Do you understand that it is OR (the sentence I asked you about)? -YMB29 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I understood that there was a possibility for that early on however since the identical phrase which you had left in the article was according to you, especially after repeatedly citing WP:OR, perfectly valid i assumed that there was a loophole which you knew about. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So you understand that it is OR and should be removed? -YMB29 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it is on same level as one you wrote. So do have agreement that both are OR and both need to go? - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean the word however? I don't think it is on the same level (I can clarify later), but for now it can go. -YMB29 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Then we are agreed on that. Do you want to do the required edits? Because mine would be delayed at least until tomorrow evening. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I can make the edits for these two sentences for now, but do you agree that the part after the however (according to Soviet sources, units of the Finnish 18th Infantry Division advanced and took the settlement of Novyi Beloostrov on 4 September, but a Soviet counter-attack threw them out the next day) is not OR? -YMB29 (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I think even if you don't like the first two sources, the new one is clear about this. -YMB29 (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Nazarenko appears from all accounts to be a solid source for the statement. I would recommend leaving Werth and Luknitsky out (at least for now) but that is your call of course. I hope we can continue this progress. I removed the implicative 'although' from the text but i left the tags there for you to verify if the current text is satisfactory to you. I didn't yet go further down though and it needs yet another look. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well now it is better, but still, the fact that it is there is either implying something or giving irrelevant detailed information. Maybe someone else can comment on this.

The only thing that has to be removed now is Neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War mention fighting at N. Beloostrov on 4–5 September 1941. -YMB29 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove that statement then as well as the rest of the tags - if you can pinpoint the other flaws please post the segments here and let's take a look at them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This part: war diary of the Finnish 6th Regiment... notes that the regiment stopped after reaching a small stream north of N. Beloostrov.

Where does it say that the regiment stopped? -YMB29 (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll change that to 'formed for defense' which is more accurate. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Baryshnikov

Baryshnikov may claim whatever he pleases since the Russian archives are not open and available. Baryshnikov is nothing but a liar and a propagandist. A simple fact is that Russia, whatever it is called, is the ancient enemy of Finland. Nor1980 (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Baryshnikov holds a doctorate in history and is useful for representing the view of the "Soviet school" of modern Russian historians. Your personal hatred towards him or Russia is not sufficient to remove that paragraph. --illythr (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean lying in the service of Russia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.24.170 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

*shrug* Whatever rocks your boat. --illythr (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Baryshnikov cites are inadequate -- requesting quote per WP:Verifiability#Accessibility

1. Could whoever added this info and placed these citations or wants the Baryshnikov-based info to remain in this article please quote the relevant source material as per the WP policy cited here. I can't find the info so far as per below.

2. Source 13, an online publication of Johan Beckman. Please point to where in the long section the supporting quote(s) is/are found, again as per WP:policy. For ease of reference, I would suggest IDENTIFYING the section(s) by the copious chronological inline citations ostensibly placed by Baryshnikov himself in that reference.

3. The second reference is more problematic since it is only to the apparent home page of an organization called "St. Petersburg: Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy." If in fact the Baryshnikov material is published somewhere on that website, the citation needs to be specific, not just to the home page of a website that contains one of Baryshnikov's works. Also, if there are smaller sections or page numbers or inline citation numbers or any other in-text markers for Baryshnikov at this website, please refer to one or more of those. Otherwise, please provide the paragraph or line number. Without an adequate level of specificity, a citation is not very useful.

4. Finally, if someone more proficient than I in Russian would like to provide translations for the requested quotes, that would be nice, too; but I am not asking for those per se. I'll naturally want to do my own translation as well. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The pages are added for the book citation and the link is updated for the article.

This is from the English version of the book (Finland and the Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944, pp. 180-184):

Finnish historical literature describes in detail the defensive battles undertaken by the Finnish Army after Soviet troops captured Vyborg, when it received support from Germany in the form of aircraft, anti-tank weapons, and assault artillery brigades, and its soldiers showed outstanding determination. The attacking troops of the 21st and 23rd Armies could make no substantial progress even after a few attempts to break through the Finnish defences north-east of Vyborg in Tali and Ihantala, as well as the defensive boundaries of the River Vuoksi system around Vuosalmi and Ayrapaa. For this reason, some Finnish publications began to give these battles the original definition of a "defensive victory" (torjuntavoitto in Finnish). Later it gained a special and deeper meaning, for example in The Nation at War. "After the portending forecast of total catastrophe, the defenders achieved a defensive victory [my italics]".
Such definitions of the twenty three days of fighting on the Karelian Isthmus after the 21st Army captured Vyborg are obviously exaggerated. They also make it seem as though this was the reason that Soviet troops did not take control of the whole of Finland. This is very clear in particular in an article by distinguished historian Ohto Manninen entitled A Serious Attack and its Objectives that was published in the Finnish Journal of Military History on the 50th anniversary of the fighting. This article and other pieces in the magazine were published under the title Defensive Victory in 1944.
It should also be noted that the article written by Manninen - a scholar I respect and a long-standing colleague - does not contain the most important thing: a strategic document from the Red Army General Staff based on a decision by Supreme High Command Headquarters which could prove that "large-scale plans concerning Finland" existed during the final stages of the battle for Leningrad when the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk strategic assault was being carried out. In this article - and also in Pentti Alanen's previously published book Closing the Path of Invasion, which Manninen used - there are unfortunately references to sources which can not be considered documentary. Alanen writes in particular that in the summer of 1944 "The Soviet Union's Supreme Military Command wanted [my italics] to rout Finland militarily", and that these plans were "brought to the Army". According to Alanen, this information was received from prisoners of war, and that, "In his address to the troops before the attack, Govorov confirmed the necessity to reach Vyborg, the border of 1940, and then Helsinki". Although he writes that Govorov and other generals "let all the soldiers know about the orders from Moscow", Alanen does not specify exactly what the "orders" were that Govorov mentioned in his speech.
In turn, Manninen, developing Alanen's affirmation and referring to Soviet literature - primarily the memoirs of Army General S.M. Shtemenko - points out that as early as June 1944, at the very beginning of the attack, the task set to Soviet troops was to break down the Finnish army and advance "to Finland's major centres, including Helsinki". It is also mentioned without reference to a source that the task of the 21st Army was to hold the border at Kotka-Kouvola after capturing Vyborg; this is later illustrated with a diagram. Here it should be noted that the same kind of diagram was used by Alanen without any reference to any sources based on which it could be drawn.
If all these statements were taken on trust, then the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk strategic attack would not look like a pre-planned operation carried out to eliminate the still-extant danger to Leningrad from the north and to re-establish a border with Finland along its whole length, but would appear to be directed at capturing and occupying Finland. But then what is to be done about well-known sources which contradict this?
In this case, the information garnered by Finnish intelligence during the first half of July 1944 about Stalin's position on military operations in Finland after the capture of Vyborg by the 21st Army seem to be weighty. This has been referred in books by Kalle Lehmus, an officer at Mannerheim's headquarters, and also by the well-known politician Atos Wirtanen and the military historian Helge Seppala. "In the first half of July," Lehmus writes, "radio reconnaissance at headquarters intercepted telegrams which were being exchanged between Stalin and Govorov. Govorov received an order from Stalin to move a number of divisions located in the Finnish sector of the front to the reserves for some other purpose. In his return telegram, Govorov apparently objected and declared that he had the capacity to reach Helsinki in two weeks if only he would be allowed to keep the same troops. Stalin's answer came very quickly [Seppala specifies that "the order came in an hour"]. It said, 'The war will be won in Berlin, not in Helsinki. The concentrated troops mentioned in the order should be located in the reserves in Leningrad'."
The received intelligence was immediately reported to the Finnish leadership. According to Wirtanen, "Headquarters in Mikkeli immediately telephoned Mannerheim, who was in Helsinki at that time, and at the same time a courier was sent with a telegram". Naturally, Mannerheim reported the content of the telegram to the Finnish leadership. It is significant that Paasonen subsequently generalised the situation at the front. Mannerheim considered it necessary to include this in his memoirs. According to Manninen, Paasonen said that "The Russian attacks on the Karelian Isthmus and north of Lake Ladoga were postponed according to instructions from superiors and because the defences north-east of Vyborg are very favourable to local conditions. The fact that most of the tanks used for the attack and most of the artillery were transferred to the Baltic Front proves that no serious attack was expected."

-YMB29 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the English translation of the section from Siege of Leningrad... Could you please tell where (and maybe quote the first sentence or paragraph) in the original cited Russian-language work (which I'm sure is the proper way to cite, i.e., in original tongue) that that material appears. What I've inferred, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the Beckman publication is only a portion of Baryshnikov's book. ??? It doesn't matter really, except I'm trying to find the material. I understand from the short English translation quote that it's not contiguous; that's fine. I need to find where those five pages, i.e., 180-184, start in the Beckman-published source. The thing is the Beckman-published Russian original is the equivalent as far as I can tell to about 89 book pages not counting B's end-notes. And then could you reference the STARTING PLACE in the cited original Russian version--so anyone who wants to check it OR self-educate, CAN. (The most "professional" way may be to identify the subheading, one of which FORTUNATELY appears every few pages, and then the paragraph number of that subsection (followed by "et seq."). I personally would just as much prefer IDing by B's inline citation number(s)) It's reasonable to expect a citer to identify with specificity the location of a cite within a larger work--and it's WP policy. IME on WP, certainly in this article, and elsewhere, page numbers are usually given. It's understood page numbers can't be given in Beckman's pub. 'cuz there aren't any.

Rel the second source, #150, could you please quote that--also IN RUSSIAN. The revised address you provided is coming up alternately as the same home page or gibberish. Since I work with cyrillic on multiple browsers and software, I don't think the problem is at least primarily on my end. another way would be to point the reader to the correct menu item on that cyrillic home page, provided the same problem doesn't arise. All the menu items of that home page work fine on my browser.

To summarize, if you could point to where the 5-page section starts in the Beckman publication and quote the presumably short ('cuz the whole article is short) section from the article, I or any other user would then be able to access it. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I found the info in the first cited Baryshnikov source and added a parenthetical location note for the CITED source, and removed my quote request tag for THAT source. Still need quote for second source--in Russian. Thx Paavo273 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to set the character encoding in your browser to Cyrillic (Windows-1251). The relevant section starts with "Но в это время последовали телеграфные переговоры Сталина с Говоровым." I can paste it here if you still can't load the Cyrillic characters on that page, but it is basically saying the same thing as the quote above. -YMB29 (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

'Was able to get it in WE. Thx Paavo273 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"Reconquest of ..." etc

Some titles look as if the article has been written by the Finns and for Finnish readers only. Thus, "Reconquest of Ladoga Karelia", "Reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus" etc imply a reader stand on pro-Finnish positions, and they perfectly knows who reconquered them. Actually, these territories were reconquered at least twice: firstly by the Finns in 1941, and then by the USSR in 1944. In my opinion, the title should clearly say the section discusses Finnish offensive. In connection to that, I changed the title from "Campaign of 1941" to "Finnish advances in 1941". --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote it, it was "1941: Finnish offensive", but somewhere during the 2010 Jaan changed it to the current one. In my original writing of the article, the idea was to divide the war to three phases: Finnish offensive (1941), War in trenches (1942-3) and Soviet offensive (1944). So I strongly support your renaming of that section. --Whiskey (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Current one (one from Paul) is better than what there was previously but given how the other entries are written the "1941: Finnish offensive" would be fitting as well. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer Whiskey's version ("offensive"), as "Finnish advances" looks like some sort of international courtship to me. --illythr (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't know the article's history, and I also prefer the Whiskey's version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

"Re-conquest" is a valid description since it relates to Ladoga Karelia and the Karelian isthmus. Do read up on the history of those areas. It does not express a "Finnish" view as you suggest. It represents the view of the international community and the League of Nations at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.4.126 (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source in infobox

WP requires that we faithfully represent what sources say. If someone insists on using the source as it appeared in the infobox B4 I just deleted it, there will be no choice but state it the way the source does: limited Soviet victory or limited war outcome. Paavo273 (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Quotes added to the article

General Platonov observes, "The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces from the bridgehead failed to gain results. The enemy was able to significantly tighten the formation of its forces in the area and to fend off all attacks of our troops... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21. Our forces did not succeed to advance to the Finnish-Soviet border and to clear the Karelian Isthmus of enemy forces. By moving enough reinforcements to the area, the Finnish war command stopped the attack of the Soviet forces from the Karelian Isthmus to deep inside Finland."

The article already says that the offensive was stopped before it reached Finland. There is no reason to add the entire quote to this article (see WP:QUOTEFARM).

General Adolf Ehrnrooth: "The Continuation War ended in a (Finnish) defensive victory in the most important meaning of the term."

Is this general a historian? There is no reason to quote him. I can also quote Soviet generals about how they beat Finland... Then the article's quality would suffer.

Also, that section (1944: Soviet offensive) is not the right place to make conclusions about the whole war.

-YMB29 (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Published material of key players' analysis is relevant to the subject and belongs in the article. Granted, there might be an even better location. Paavo273 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Paavo273. These quotes and sources belong to this article (although I am not against placing the info in another spot). The Soviet objective to penetrate "deep inside Finland"^[1] and to "conquer"^[2] Finland and the Soviet failure to achieve this central goal is best explained by the Soviet war plans sourced in this segment, and by the statement of the Soviet general, in the book which he edited and which pertains to this particular theater of war. The book was published in the Soviet Union in 1964. These sources are essential for the understanding of why the result of the war in this article must not be marked as a "Soviet victory". Below is the segment which YMB29 would like to remove while leaving the result of the war as a "Soviet victory". Following the example of the Finnish Wikipedia article, I will proceed to revert the result of the war back to "Moscow Armistice", leaving the old sources untacked and including these sources (others can be added).

Below is the part removed by YMB29 (statements of the veteran generals must not be separated from the war plans' source):

Soviet General S. P. Platonov (1964) confirms the Soviet purpose still in the summer of 1944 to have been to penetrate "deep inside Finland"^[1], as was envisioned in the Soviet 1940-1941 war plans^[2], finalized in May, 1941. General Platonov states the following of the summer 1944 battles: "The repeated offensive attempts of the Soviet forces from the bridgehead failed to gain results. The enemy was able to significantly tighten the formation of its forces in the area and to fend off all attacks of our troops. ... During the offensive operations, lasting over three weeks, from June 21 to mid-July, the forces of the right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them on the orders of the Supreme Command, issued on June 21. Our forces did not succeed to advance to the Finnish-Soviet border and to clear the Karelian Isthmus of enemy forces. By moving enough reinforcements to the area, the Finnish war command stopped the attack of the Soviet forces from the Karelian Isthmus to deep inside Finland."^[1] Finnish General Adolf Ehrnrooth witnessed the summer's battles as the commander of the 7th Infantry Regiment (JR 7) of the 2nd Division on the Karelian Isthmus. In 2003, Ehrnrooth stated: "Continuation War ended in a (Finnish) defensive victory in the most important meaning of the term."^[3] Ehrnrooth was awarded the Mannerheim Cross. --Christinaxx (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c General S. P. Platonov: "Our forces did not succeed to advance to the Finnish-Soviet border ... the Finnish war command stopped the attack of the Soviet forces from the Karelian Isthmus deep inside Finland." 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' ("Битва за Ленинград"), p. 178. Editor: General S. P. Platonov. Publisher: Voenizdat Ministerstva oborony SSSR. The Soviet Union. 1964.
^ ^a ^b Manninen, Ohto (2008). Miten Suomi valloitetaan: Puna-armeijan operaatiosuunnitelmat 1939-1944 ("How Finland is Conquered: Operational Plans of the Red Army, 1939-1944" (in Finnish). Helsinki: Edita. ISBN 978-951-37-5278-1.
^ Statement by General Adolf Ehrnrooth: "The Continuation War ended in a (Finnish) defensive victory in the most important meaning of the term." Pro Karelia. December 17, 2003.

See the points I made above. You have not addressed them.

Advancing deep into Finland does not mean conquering it. If you say it is, it is your original research, which is not allowed here.

It does not matter what the Finnish general says. He is not a historian. Like I said, I can also quote Soviet generals. Do you want that?

As for Soviet victory, it is ridiculous to claim that it was anything than a Soviet victory when Finland had to pay reparations, was forced to turn on its German ally, and agreed to many other terms demanded by the Soviets.

The sources cited directly say that it was a Soviet victory. There is no ignoring that.

This has been discussed too many times. -YMB29 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you want to quote Platonov's book, the other things written there should be quoted too, such as:

Despite the defeat of its army, Finland continued the war. The Soviet army had to achieve new victories in South Karelia, Belorussia, the Baltics and other directions of the Soviet-German front to force the Finnish reactionary government to accept the conditions of the Soviet government and exit the war from the side of the Hitler's Germany.

This shows that Platonov and the other authors of the book, don't say that the Soviet government wanted to conquer Finland, but only to force it from the war. -YMB29 (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, including Christinaxx and YMB29,

Rel YMB29's statement, "As for Soviet victory, it is ridiculous to claim that it was anything than a Soviet victory when Finland had to pay reparations, was forced to turn on its German ally, and agreed to many other terms demanded by the Soviets," there is on the contrary substantial authority, including (1) sourced discussion in the article, (2) the sourced material Christinaxx has reasonably added, and (3) one or more sources I introduced previously that indicate this was a Finnish victory rel the only issue that mattered, i.e., avoiding being swallowed up by the USSR. I previously cited an RS that called it a "limited Soviet victory." That at least gives some indication that the result was not what the Soviets were after.

As it stands, given the sourced facts and opinions discussed in the article, it IMO stains WP's reputation for accuracy to state this as an unqualified "Soviet victory."

To say that the published analysis of high ranking military officers in the conflict does not belong seems IMO like a case of WP:I don't like it. There is also substantial OTHER authority already cited in the article as to the Soviets' motives. Paavo273 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Most sources don't support the claim that the Soviets wanted to conquer Finland.

As for quoting the Finnish general, he was not even a high ranking military officer during the war. -YMB29 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Detailed Soviet war plans from the late 1940 to 5/1941 with analysis by a well-known historian Ohto Manninen is an appropriate source for the Soviet intent to conquer Finland. Platonov (a source in the article already before) confirms that by 1944 the Soviet intent to attack "deep inside Finland" had not changed, and that the Soviet forces of the critical "right flank of the Leningrad front failed to carry out the tasks assigned to them", and that the Soviet "forces did not succeed to advance to the Finnish-Soviet border". The Mannerheim-Cross-awarded General Ehrnrooth, who led Finns in the front as a colonel in the summer of 1944, confirms this and calls the end-result "a (Finnish) defensive victory in the most important meaning of the term." In his memoirs (1970), the Soviet Premier (General) Nikita Khrushchev explains that the post-WWII Soviet officials "lied" about the Soviet objectives and the end-results of the Finnish-Soviet fighting waged during WWII. The previously removed info was cropped slightly and placed differently, with the Khrushchev info added, including a source (KHRUSHCHEV REMEMBERS. Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev. Little, Brown and Company. 1970.). -- Christinaxx (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That does not mean that Khrushchev said that it was not a Soviet victory. He is not even a reliable source on this, especially when we have better sources.

It does not matter if the Finnish general got the Mannerheim Cross or not. He is not a historian and was not a top military commander during the war.

Again, Platonov does not say anything about conquering Finland.

You need to stop trying to add your changes that are based on misinterpretation of sources. -YMB29 (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with YMB29 - the quotes by Manninen and Platonov refer to strategic planning and tactical engagements and do not touch the overall result of the war (whereas all the other sources do). Ehrnrooth's quote reflects the popular "Finland had lost the war but won the peace" sentiment, with peace and continued independence being the "most important meaning of the term" (also corroborated by David Kirby ("The Soviet Union won the war, but Finland came in a good second") and other researchers). The historical perception of the war in Finland (both popular and in historiography) is a good topic for article expansion, but it has no bearing on the objective result of the war (as established by reliable third party sources). As for Khrushchev, you might want to watch what you cite, heh. --illythr (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased

Added template POV template . The article title itself is based on Finnish point of view.Sarvagyana guru (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, for the Soviets it was just another front (and not the most important one) but for Finland it was all. It's no surprise a big chunk of reference literature and the name Continuation War (jatkosota) is Finnish. --Pudeo ' 16:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Finland had declared war against United Kingdom, Czechoslovakia, Australia, Canada, India. Nothing about is mentioned in this article. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

False, those countries declared war against Finland. And the United Kingdom is mentioned even in the infobox as a "minor belligerent" as they conducted one air raid in the Artic. The United States, on the other hand, never declared war on Finland. Regards to your objection to the name "Continuation War", it gets plenty of results from Google scholar. It is the most used name. --Pudeo ' 10:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Russians use the term Great Patriotic Wat or Great Fatherland War for World War 2, but other than them nobody else uses that term. Similarly the term Continuation War was coined by Fins, therefore it is better to use a more neutral sounding name such as Finn-Soviet War of 1941-1944. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the most commonly used English name, not the most neutral or politically acceptable. (Hohum ^@) 16:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent information across articles

From this article on the Continuation War: "By the terms of the treaty, Finland lost one eleventh of its national territory and about 13% of its economic capacity."

From the article on the Winter War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War "Finland ceded territory representing 11% of its land area and 30% of its economy to the Soviet Union."

From the article on Military History of Finland during World War II: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Finland_during_World_War_II "By the end of hostilities, Finland managed to defend its independence, but had to cede nearly 10% of its territory..."

Each article proposes a different amount of land ceded (1/11, 11%, and nearly 10%), while the difference between "13% of economic capacity" and "30% of its economy" is quite large (unless the distinction between 'economic capacity' and 'economy' explains the % difference)

96.48.47.48 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Exact phrase from the book used as a source for the this article is: "Finland lost almost tenth of its territory and around 13 per cent of the national wealth, including valuable timber stocks, factories, and refineries..."

While not a perfect source the statistical yearbooks do contain the values for the surface area, and also for land area if there is real need to get an accurate value for those. From 1938 statistical yearbook - [15] - total area 382 801 km² of which land 348 477 km². And from 1940 - [16] - total area 347 717 km², of which land 315 672 km². Which hints that '1/11' and 'nearly 10%' are true, what does sort of come to my mind is that the '11%' may refer to the total loss of land during the WW2 instead of just that lost during the Winter War but i can not currently check the source in question to verify that information one way or the other. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Continuation War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Continuation War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060829070019/http://www.narc.fi:80/Arkistolaitos/luovutukset/english.htm to http://www.narc.fi/Arkistolaitos/luovutukset/english.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Puppet regimes

" Soviet puppet regimes were installed; and within two months Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were incorporated as Soviet republics within the Soviet Union" is blatantly POV-pushing. These so-called "puppet regimes" were Baltic citizens which sympathised with the Soviet-Union. A fact which Baltic nationalists do not want to see. Otto (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Which were put into office by 'elections' where only certain minded candidates were eligible to be elected and which were held while the countries were under military occupation by the USSR. So that is not POV pushing. Additional information for you: Sovietization of the Baltic states, People's Parliament. Only part that is POV pushing is the attempt to pass the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic states as something else than what it in reality was. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of your rhetoric has nothing to do with the pejorative POV "puppet regime". What is relevant from your words is that these eligible candidates were "certain minded". That their political ambitions didn't fit your POV doesn't make them puppets. I should rather say that you are a puppet of your own prejudices. Your hostility towards soviet sympathisers makes you jeopardise this article. Otto (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You clearly didn't bother to read the articles i linked to, you might want to do so now. Given that the so called elections were held under the gun barrels of the Red Army and that only communist candidates were even allowed there really is no other way of describing the governments the Soviets installed there as anything else than puppet regimes. Their political views actually do really matter since they were set to power while the countries in question were under Soviet military occupation - which in fact defines them as puppet governments. If you do not like the articles i linked how about these: [17], [18] or [19] - via google books. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Otto, pleas learn and return to discuss.

Please don't attack other editors (I should rather say that you are a puppet of your own prejudices). Xx236 (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Soviet bombs

According to Mark Solomin the Soviets bombed Finland preparing an invasion. The 10th Mechanized Corps (Soviet Union) was transported to the Finish border, near Imatra, which the linked article ignores.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that the Soviets did bomb Finland after 25 June 1941. If it was planned to be followed with an invasion is another story. Most if not all of the initial clashes along the border are ignored in the article. For example the clashes that occurred near Imatra and Enso (Svetogorsk) between 28 June and 4 July are not mentioned at all. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the POW section

I had several issues with the addition made to the page so i reverted it. Mainly it was rather oddly cited, and edited (i.e. not formatted for wikipedia). Another rather important part was that i couldn't find sections corresponding to the posted text from the article that was referenced. It seems to me that it would be best to address those issues prior to inserting the section to the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Secondly there already exists article about the POWs so it might be better to have the relevant portions of the text included to that article - Soviet prisoners of war in Finland - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Result

I think Moscow armistice is most appropriate. The Finns won the final four or five battles that resulted in bringing the Soviets to the bargaining table. The Soviets really got their noses blooded in the final month of this conflict.Fury 1991 (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

Heinrichs misspelled in maps

In situation maps the name of commander of the Army of Karelia is misspelled. It should be Heinrichs, not Heinrich. 2001:14BA:2FB:AA00:B532:4E20:B643:25E6 (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You mean Erik_Heinrichs? Ruslik_Zero 18:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly 2001:14BA:2FB:AA00:2585:541:8668:8061 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Finland and the siege of Leningrad

"Finnish forces did not participate in the siege of Leningrad directly, holding their pre-World War II territory on the Karelian Isthmus for two and a half years instead.[18][19][20]"

I've read Baryshnikov's book that is used as a citation, and nowhere in the book does he claim that Finland did not participate in the Blockade (ie Siege) of Leningrad, be it directly or otherwise. Frankly, part 4 of his book, dealing with the Soviet offensive in 1944 is titled "Breaking the "finnish link" of the blockade". While I haven't yet read the other two cited books, I noticed that those same books are used in the Siege of Leningrad article to prove Finnish participation in the siege. I propose removing this phrase. Barmaglyak (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Continuation War. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed infobox modifications.

I have three suggestions for the infobox.

1-The overall casualties for the soviets that we have includes non-combat casualties, such as hospitalizations due to disease. The axis side does not. I propose adding up dead/missing/wounded on the Soviet side (690 000), and clarifying that those are combat losses only, so we have something to compare.

2-The wording for the soviet casualties seems to imply that the 305 000 are all dead, including the 64 000 prisoners. As we know, not all of the prisoners captured by Finland died. A better term to use would be dead and missing.

3-Also, I strongly believe that the Siege of Leningrad must be mentioned in the infobox. Ten times more civilians died there, than overall finnish losses in this war. And though I don't see a way of telling how many died due to Germans cutting off the city from the south, and how many died due to Finns cutting off the city from the north, it should at least be mentioned. I propose "excluding the hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Siege of Leningrad" or something along this lines added to the Soviet part of the infobox.Barmaglyak (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Since you made several suggestions...

1-I disagree. If the results were clumped together then you might have a point but currently that ain't the case.

2-No problems replacing it with that.

3-I disagree since there already exists a separate article for that.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

1-So how about splitting the totals into combat and non-combat (thus, under totals, the axis side would have 275 000 combat casualties and unknown non-combat casualties)? Or perhaps just stating that the 275 000 are combat losses only?

3-Your argument seems to be flawed - we also have separate articles for Finnish POW's in Soviet captivity (and vice versa), yet the prisoners are mentioned in the infobox. Also, if we have something so statistically insignificant like deaths of 190 Finnish civilians due to Soviet partisans in the infobox, surely the infamous siege that killed around 3500 times more civilians deserves at least a link. Barmaglyak (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

1-To be clear I'm not quite sure how that would in any manner benefit the article.

2-So are the Soviet POWs in Finnish captivity so i see no discrepancy there. Soviet partisan activity against Finland certainly fits within the scope of the Continuation War. Slating the civilian casualties of the Siege of Leningrad - especially given the Finnish inaction in it - as a whole on the Continuation War is a much more dubious claim.

- Wanderer602 (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it would be dubious to slate them all on the Continuation War. Less dubious than slating none, but still not acceptable. However, it's not what I was proposing. Finnish armies cut the city off from the Soviet transportation network in the north, much like the Germans did in the south. Sure, the Finns didn't advance on Soviet fortifications on the old border north of Leningrad and didn't shell the city, like the Germans did. But the main cause of death of civilians in this siege was not due to shelling, but due to being cut from the transportation network. Thus what some describe as "Finnish inaction" doesn't seem to remove the responsibility for hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths from Finland. Such a major event, in which Finland was an active participant, deserves to be in the infobox. Barmaglyak (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Well... Technically for one thing - per WW II standards the responsibility for the besieged civilians belonged to the besieged party, not to the besieger. That changed only after the WW II [20]. But i can concede that point. I personally think it would be best just to have a link to the Siege of Leningrad article which does discuss the effect of the Finnish advance on the siege. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so legally it wasn't a war crime, much like say the carpet bombings of German and Japanese cities, or the 1 000 000+ civilians who were collateral damage during the RKKA's campaign in Europe in 44-45. Non-the-less it's easy to see both victim and killing agent in those cases.

I am glad we have come to a reasonable compromise on the matter at hand. Barmaglyak (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

BRD on 6:06 AM vs. 06:06

With these [21] [22] repeated reverts, an editor is insisting on "06:06" instead of "6:06 AM". I've favored the "AM" version, per MOS:COMMONALITY, as American English doesn't understand the "06:06" version to always indicate a 24-hour clock, while both British and American English understand the "AM" version. Yes, it's a minor thing, but the editor isn't responding to invitations avoid more WP:EW and follow WP:BRD. So, here we are. Comments? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

With no counterpoint for over a week, reinstating "6:06 AM", per BRD. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive of uncited material

An archive of most uncited stuff from the article. Manelolo (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On 21 June, Finnish units began to concentrate at the Finnish-Soviet border, where they were arranged into defensive formations. Finland mobilized 16 infantry divisions, one cavalry brigade, and two jäger brigades, which were all standard infantry brigades, except for an armoured battalion in the 1st Jäger Brigade. Separate battalions were mostly formed from border guard units and were used mainly for reconnaissance. Soviet military plans estimated that Finland would be able to mobilise only ten infantry divisions, as it had done in the Winter War, but they failed to take into account the materiel Finland had purchased between the wars and its training of all available men. Two German mountain divisions were stationed at Petsamo and two infantry divisions at Salla. On the morning of 22 June, the German Mountain Corps Norway began its advance from northern Norway to Petsamo. Finland did not allow direct German attacks from its soil into the Soviet Union. On the same day, another German infantry division was moved from Oslo to face Ladoga Karelia.^{[citation needed]}
At the same time, Soviet artillery stationed at the Hanko base began to shell Finnish targets, and a minor Soviet infantry attack was launched over the Finnish side of the border in Parikkala.^{[citation needed]}
Finnish headquarters halted the offensive in Ladoga Karelia on 25 July after reconquering the area of Ladoga Karelia lost to the Soviet Union in 1940 and after advancing as far as Vitele. The Finnish offensive then shifted to other sections of the front.^{[citation needed]}
The Finnish offensive in East Karelia started in early July in the northern section of the front. In early September, the attack in the northern section reached Rukajärvi (Ругозеро, Rugozero) village and Finnish headquarters halted the offensive there. On August 27, Finnish headquarters ordered the offensive in the south to reach the Svir River. Finnish troops cut the Kirov railroad on 7 September, crossed the Svir on 15 September, and then halted the offensive. Advance troops reached the shores of Lake Onega on 24 September. The town of Petrozavodsk was captured on 1 October after the Soviets withdrew to avoid encirclement. On 6 November, Finnish headquarters ordered their forces to capture Karhumäki and then shift to defense. The Finnish forces captured the area of Karhumäki and Povenets, and halted the offensive in early December.^{[citation needed]}
The German–Finnish troops were ordered on 17 November to move to defensive operations, when attempts to reach the Murmansk Railway had failed.^{[citation needed]}
Germany was alarmed by this, and reacted by drawing down shipments of desperately needed materials each time. The idea that Finland had to continue the war while putting its own forces in the least possible danger gained increasing support, perhaps in the hope that the Wehrmacht and the Red Army would wear each other down enough for negotiations to begin, or to at least get them out of the way of Finland's independent decisions. Nationalist elements, including the IKL, may also have continued to hope for an eventual victory by Germany.^{[citation needed]}
Finland's participation in the war brought major benefits to Germany. The Soviet fleet was blockaded in the Gulf of Finland, so that the Baltic was freed for the training of German submarine crews as well as for German shipping, especially for the transport of vital iron ore from northern Sweden and nickel and rare metals (needed in steel processing) from the Petsamo area. The Finnish front secured the northern flank of the German Army Group North in the Baltic states. The sixteen Finnish divisions tied down numerous Soviet troops, put pressure on Leningrad (although Mannerheim refused to attack it directly), and threatened the Murmansk railway. Additionally, Sweden was further isolated and was increasingly pressured to comply with German and Finnish wishes, though with limited success.^{[citation needed]}
Although the Soviet Red Banner Baltic fleet started the war in a strong position, German naval mine warfare and aerial supremacy and the rapid advance by German land forces forced the Soviet Navy to evacuate its bases to Kronstadt and Leningrad. The Soviets' evacuations from Tallinn and Hanko proved to be very costly operations for them. As the Soviet Navy withdrew to the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland, it left nearly the whole Baltic Sea, as well as many of the islands, to the German and Finnish navies. Although Soviet submarines caused some threat to German traffic on the Baltic, the withdrawal of the Soviet Navy made the Baltic Sea a "German lake" until the second half of 1944. Although the Soviet Navy left in a hurry, the naval mines it had managed to lay before and during the evacuations caused casualties both to the Germans and the Finns, including the loss of one of the two Finnish coastal defence ships, the Ilmarinen.^{[citation needed]}
Despite Finland's contributions to the German cause, the Western Allies had ambivalent feelings, torn between residual goodwill for Finland and the need to accommodate their vital ally, the Soviet Union. As a result, Britain declared war against Finland, but the United States did not. With few exceptions, there was no combat between these countries and Finland, but Finnish sailors were interned overseas. In the United States, Finland was denounced for naval attacks made on American Lend-Lease shipments, but received approval for continuing to make payments on its World War I debt throughout the inter-war period.^{[citation needed]}
Because Finland joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and signed other agreements with Germany, Italy, and Japan, the Allies characterized Finland as one of the Axis Powers, although the term used in Finland is "co-belligerence with Germany", emphasizing the lack of a formal military alliance.^{[citation needed]}
As in the Winter War, Swedish volunteers were recruited. Until December 1941, these formed the Swedish Volunteer Battalion, which was tasked with guarding the Soviet naval base at Hanko. When it was evacuated by sea in December 1941, the Swedish unit was officially disbanded. During the Continuation War, the volunteers signed up for three to six months of service. In all, over 1,600 Swedish volunteers fought for Finland, although only about 60 remained by the summer of 1944. About a third of the volunteers had previously participated in the Winter War. Another significant group—about a quarter of the men—were Swedish officers on leave.^{[citation needed]}
From 1942 to 1944 there was also a Schutzstaffel (SS) battalion of volunteers on the northern Finnish front recruited from Norway, then under German occupation, and similarly, some Danes. About 3,400 Estonian volunteers took part. On other occasions, the Finns received a total of about 2,100 Soviet prisoners of war in return for those Soviet POWs they turned over to the Germans. These POWs were mainly Estonians and Karelians who were willing to join the Finnish army. These, as well as some volunteers from occupied Eastern Karelia, formed the Kinship Battalion (Finnish language: Heimopataljoona). At the end of the war, the USSR requested members of the Kinship Battalion to be handed over. Some managed to escape before or during transport, but most of them were either sent to the labor camps or executed.^{[citation needed]}
Throughout the war, German aircraft operating from airfields in northern Finland attacked British air and naval units based in Murmansk and Archangelsk.^{[citation needed]}
This sum constituted half of Finland's annual gross domestic product in 1939.^{[citation needed]}
There are two views of the number of Finnish prisoners of war. The Soviet and Russian view is that of 2,377 Finnish prisoners of war who reached the prison camps 1,954 were returned after the Moscow Armistice. The Finnish view is that of the original approximately 3,500 Finnish prisoners of war, only about 2,000 were returned (more than 40% perished). The difference can be at least partially explained by the Soviet practice of counting only the prisoners who survived to reach a prison camp.^{[citation needed]}
The territory of Estonia would have provided the Soviet army a favourable base for amphibious invasions and air attacks against Finland's capital, Helsinki, and other strategic targets in Finland, and would have severed Finnish access to the sea. The initial German reaction to Finland's announcement of ambitions for a separate peace was limited to only verbal opposition. However, the Germans then arrested hundreds of sailors on Finnish merchant ships in Germany, Denmark, and Norway.^{[citation needed]}
Previously, in return for critically needed food and defense materiel from the Germans, President Ryti had personally committed, in writing, that no separate peace with the Soviets would be attempted. Accordingly, it became clear that he must resign, paving the way for a separate peace. Finland's military leader Mannerheim was appointed president in an extraordinary procedure by the Finnish parliament. In agreeing to take office, he accepted responsibility for ending the war.^{[citation needed]}
Nevertheless, in contrast to the rest of the Eastern front countries, where the war was fought to the end, a Soviet occupation of Finland did not occur and the country retained sovereignty. Neither did the Communists rise to power as they had in the Eastern Bloc countries. A policy called the Paasikivi–Kekkonen line formed the basis of Finnish foreign policy towards the Soviet Union until the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991.^{[citation needed]}
Finland adopted the concept of a "parallel war" whereby it sought to pursue its own objectives in concert with, but separate from, Nazi Germany, as "co-belligerents".^{[citation needed]}
The subsequent Soviet and Allied advances towards Germany drew away the interest in military operations from Northern Europe, hastening the end of the Continuation War.^{[citation needed]}
On 4 September 1944, the cease-fire ended military actions on the Finnish side. The Soviet Union ended hostilities exactly 24 hours after the Finns. An armistice between the Soviet Union and Finland was signed in Moscow on 19 September. Finland had to make many concessions: the Soviet Union regained the borders of 1940, with the addition of the Petsamo area (now Pechengsky District, Russia); the Porkkala peninsula (adjacent to Helsinki) was leased to the USSR as a naval base for fifty years; and transit rights were granted. Finland's army was to be demobilized with haste, but Finland was first required to expel all German troops from its territory within 14 days. As the Germans did not leave Finland by the given deadline, the Finns fought their former co-belligerents in the Lapland War. Finland was also required to clear the minefields in Karelia (including East Karelia) and in the Gulf of Finland. Retreating German forces had also mined northern Finland heavily. The demining was a long operation, especially in the sea areas, lasting until 1952. One-hundred Finnish army personnel were killed and over 200 wounded during this process, most of them in Lapland.^{[citation needed]}

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Continuation War. 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/20040904030659/http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/rollofhonour/Battlehonour_crewlists/Petsamo_Kirkenes_1941.html to http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/RollofHonour/Battlehonour_crewlists/Petsamo_Kirkenes_1941.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Scope of "result" included in the infobox

Unanimous consensus against adding subsidiary bullet points, such as "Finland retains independence" and "(more...)" to the Result parameter of the infobox. The simple form of "Soviet victory" and "Moscow Armistice" explain it best. Manelolo (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the infobox's "result" parameter include subsidiary bullet points as "Finland retains independence" and "(more...)", or not? RedUser (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No: As per Talk:Winter_War#RFC:_Scope_of_"result"_included_in_the_infobox and Winter War, the wisest option seems to be to just have "Moscow Armistice (See Aftermath)" with both appropriately linked. (Interestingly, the aforementioned RFC was initiated by Bertdrunk, which now redirects to Berty688, with amazingly similar language as RedUser above.) Manelolo (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

See also Talk:Battle_of_France#RFC_-_"Decisive" for an RFC on a somewhat similar issue. Manelolo (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No: we do not list all consequences of a war include in the infobox. (Furthermore, I am not sure that the maintenance of the independence of Finland is a result of the war.) Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No Soviet victory and the Moscow armistice explain the result. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aftermath and death toll of Siege of Leningrad

Currently the article, in the Aftermath section, lists the dead civilians from Siege of Leningrad among the casualties of the Continuation war, from what I see and hear, only Russians view Finland as a (willing-) participant in the siege of the city, as such I am not sure whether inclusion of the dead from the Siege in this article, or the very least that particular section, is proper. Ape89 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ape89: The issue is not simple by any means and I tried to write the whole siege issue as neutrally as possible. Some authors say Finns did participate, some say they didn't. Some use different variations of the word 'participate', such as "cut supply routes", some use different tones. IMHO, keeping the casualties there is transparent and per WP:NEUTRAL. See also Talk:Continuation_War/Archive_16#Proposed_infobox_modifications. (although I removed civilian casualties from both sides in the infobox since an infobox is usually an open ground for edit wars due to its simplicity).

Thus, I added a large-ish disclaimer in front of the casualties to prevent any future flames of war from either sides of the aisle. See if you have any suggestions what would be better! Manelolo (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it only the Russians that can look at the map? The controversy, imho, is not whether or not Finland participated in the infamous siege, but to what degree was their role compatible to that of their "co-beligerents" the nazis. Mudriy zmei (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The key word here is the "Willing" in "willing participant", Finland would have been a participant in the siege no matter where the Finnish Army halted its advance in 1941. Ape89 (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Война-продолжение in preamble

Removed «Война-продолжение». This is a translation from Finnish (English) to Russian. But here the section is in English, not in Russian, and the translation is not needed. This war in Russian was not called «Война-продолжение». The title of this war in Russian (not translated from another language) is available in the article. For an example of an article with a similar situation: Eastern Front (World War II), Siege of Leningrad.--Germash19 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Manelolo (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead citations

What's the rationale for having so many citations in the lead? They look awful. --John (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD etc. (see also Talk:Winter_War#Citations_in_the_lead and Talk:Winter_War#rfc_AD71249). Manelolo (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not a rationale for having them. --John (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Rationale added within hidden comment. Manelolo (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Starting GA build-up

I'll slowly start cleaning, building, editing etc. this article to GA-level similar to what I did at Winter War. Will mean drastic structural changes, archiving unreferenced stuff to talk, heavy copyediting etc. etc. Hopefully done by the end of March for a GA nomination. Cheerio! Manelolo (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Just about finished. So far 1) full copyedit 2) full restructuring 3) added new bits of prose e.g. order of battle, Siege of Leningrad pondering, peace process, aftermath 4) checkrf pictures for licences, add new HD ones and balance out 5) full source review and fixing. Most likely will be GAN on the weekend. Manelolo (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, all done and nominating for GA! 231 edits in total and 29,232 bytes added. More than happy to receive critique and amend stuff if I've erred. Manelolo (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Ping to editors Whiskey, Wanderer602, Illythr, YMB29 and Germash19 to notify of GAN as well. Manelolo (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually withdrew GAN for now since a GOCE c/e was suggested. Will nominate again after c/e. Manelolo (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The article lacks a section on the trial of Finnish politicians in November 1945. --Germash19 (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The topic has its own article which is mentioned in the Aftermath section here: "In addition to the original peace terms of restoring the 1940 border, Finland was required to ... conduct domestic war-responsibility trials ..." Manelolo (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Continuation War is a propagandistic name. In the article, you can tell a little bit about the history of the origin of this name. --Germash19 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Added Vehviläinen's history on the term 'Continuation War' within the note just after the name in the lede as well as into the section 'Aspirations, war effort and international relations'. Manelolo (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Why in the article Leningrad is depicted in a photo of 2017? There are many old images.--Germash19 (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a gorgeous picture classified as featured on Commons and adds nice bit of colour, splash and continuity to the modern age for the article. Old pictures are abundant in the article as well as other articles of the time. Manelolo (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion it's a strange solution. --Germash19 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm okay with any other solution, f.ex. deleting it. I liked it. :-| And in actuality it's very hard to find good pictures of Leningrad from those days that have a free license on Commons. Manelolo (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
«...past the old border, around 30–32 km (19–20 mi) from Leningrad». There are maps of the front line. There are maps of the borders of Leningrad. The shortest distance from Beloostrov occupied by the Finns to the borders of Leningrad is 16 km.--Germash19 (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Here's a good map and even Russian! I think that 30–32 km (19–20 mi) is always measured from the city center. Would it be a good compromise if it said "around 30–32 km (19–20 mi) from the center of Leningrad"? I agree that it was around 16 km from the northern outskirts or suburbs from Leningrad (as that map shows), but outskirts or suburbs is always less accurate than center. Also, I could only find exact sources for "30–32 km (19–20 mi)". Manelolo (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
This map does not show the border of the city. The official borders of the city are precise, as well as the state border. :) Agree with «center of Leningrad».--Germash19 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I stand corrected! "Center of Leningrad" it is then. Manelolo (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Making short citations consistent

I have done about half of the work necessary to make the short citations consistent. They were using a mix of "Lastname 2001" and "Lastname (2001)", among other problems, and were using very awkward internal HTML-style anchors to link to full citations. I am converting them to use {{sfn}} for consistency and ease of future editing. If you have any objections, please make them here before I put another couple of hours into this tedious (but rewarding) work. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This conversion is done. Please let me know if I have made any errors. Here's a diff showing all of my changes, plus a few intervening copy edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Amazing work, thank you immensely! Manelolo (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed correction on a date and a number

I don't know a lot about this war, so I won't do the edit myself. So I point out the following, for someone with better information than I have. In the section "Operation Silver Fox in Lapland," article reads:

The joint Finnish–German Operation Silver Fox (German: Unternehmen Silberfuchs; Finnish: operaatio Hopeakettu) was started on 29 June 1940

I suppose this should read 1941. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I just spotted another similar glitch near the end of the article.

The number of Soviet prisoners of war in Finland was estimated by Finnish historians to be around 64,00,

Oaklandguy (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Oaklandguy: Thx for the keen eye! I fixed both. Must have been remnants of the heavy build-up and c/e. Manelolo (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of FGAN tag

First I want to congratulate everyone who worked hard on this article to bring it back to GA status, especially Manelolo, to whom I promised I would help a bunch on this, but in the end I didn't do so much haha. I have removed the Former GA tag because it's obsolete. If ever someone thinks it should be brought back and udpdated, by all means go ahead. Cheers, Double Plus Ungood (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Misleading information about Soviet bombing targets in Finland on 25 June 1941

I am here for the first time ever, so please forgive me any newcomer's mistakes.

The article on Continuation War has the following sentence:

"On the morning of 25 June, the Soviet Union launched another air offensive, with 460 fighters and bombers targeting 19 airfields in Finland, however inaccurate intelligence and poor bombing accuracy resulted in several raids hitting Finnish cities, or municipalities, causing considerable damage."

What is the source of the claim that those bombers targeted airfields, and ended up hitting cities and municipalities?

Aerial bombing in WWII was mostly done visually using bomb sights, which must have been the case in these air raids as well. How was it possible at all for Soviet aircrews with normal eyesight not to distinguish between airfields and residential areas with civilian buildings, even if their intelligence was inaccurate and bombing accuracy was poor? The latter cannot explain destruction of populated areas, as those are certainly never built next to runways.

To me, this sounds like an attempt at apology of cowardly air raids deliberately aimed against defenceless civilians, rather than inadvertent navigation errors or mistakes in finding targets.

I suggest the above quoted sentence should be corrected. For example as follows:

"On the morning of 25 June, the Soviet Union launched another air offensive, with 460 fighters and bombers allegedly targeting airfields in Finland, however several raids hitting 15 Finnish cities and municipalities including Helsinki, Kotka, Loviisa, Forsby, Porvoo, and Turku, causing considerable damage and civilian casualties."

Yours sincerely,

Finnbloke (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Finnbloke

Initial operations section

"Although the 1921 Åland convention had clauses allowing Finland to defend the islands in the event of an attack, the coordination of this operation with the German invasion and the arrest of the Soviet consulate staff stationed on the islands, meant that the deployment was a deliberate violation of the treaty, according to Finnish historian Mauno Jokipii.[81]"

If this is the case then surely the first violation is the fact the islands hadn't been attacked and the other points as things on top of that? 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:F02F:6B64:5C19:AA77 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The catch is that the treaty text does not explicitly require islands to be attacked for Finland to take action. Article 4 forbids any military (of land, naval or air) forces from entering to or staying in the Åland region. However Finland is allowed to keep police force on the islands during peacetime AND under exceptional circumstances is allowed to move there any such armed forces which are deemed necessary to preserve the local order. Additionally Finnish Navy is allowed to have 1-2 light (i.e. non-capital) ships to guard the waters in the area and is allowed to sail through it even in larger numbers. One (1) foreign warship in total may be permitted to enter the region. Article 5 notes that these limitations do not affect the right of passage (as defined in UNCLOS for example). Article 6 grants further rights: should there be a state war in the Baltic Sea region Finland is permitted to mine the waters of Åland and take any such naval/maritime measures which are deemed suitable. On Article 7 however: should a sudden attack aimed at Åland, or at Finnish mainland via Åland, place the neutrality in jeopardy Finland has to take (any) necessary actions to stop or repel the attacker until such time that the large powers (France, UK) who ratified the treaty take action to preserve/restore the neutrality.

So Finland was (and still is) required to defend the islands. In other words the act of moving the troops to Åland was not against the agreement (foreknowledge of the start of war would certainly fall into the 'exceptional circumstances' category). Also the Finnish forces moved were mainly coastal artillery which would fall into the topic ('naval/maritime measures') handled under the article 6, since Germany was in war at the time there was a state of war in the Baltic Sea region (technically if nothing else). Timing it with German actions was suspicious however. And detaining the Soviet consulate staff was certainly illegal. Other aspects than that may not have been violation of the letter of the agreement but more on the spirit of the agreement - but then again only the letter version can be enforced. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The Finnish actions were much more clearly violations of the Finnish-Soviet agreement on Åland however. Which is separate from the one involving the UK and France. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why are the listed Soviet strength figures so inaccurate?

The figure lists what Soviet forces on the Finnish front amounted to on two specific dates, according to the sources in question, instead of the total Soviet forces during the entire war. AFAIK the total figure should be c. 1.5 million. The currently listed figure's inaccuracy is already made plain by the fact that the casualties far exceed the reported strength. Actually Finnish sources put Soviet casualties as high as 1.1 million, higher than the ones currently listed in the article, but I digress.

Finnish total strength should be at around 600k; in June 1941 the military's strength was IIRC c. 475-490k, and in August 1944 it was about 528k. Add KIA, MIA and the badly wounded who did not return to the front and you get about 600k, maybe a bit more. The current ceiling figure of 700k is too high and is already including Lotta Svärd and soldiers stationed at the home front (training centres, city garrisons, POW camp guards, etc.). FulmenTheFinn (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It's probably just that no one thought about whether it should be the total number of troops during the whole war or the highest peak at a given time. Template:Infobox military conflict#Usage does not give any guidance on which it should be. Might as well ping @Wanderer602:. --Pudeo (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no real consensus on what the number should be or even what it should depict. The best i can think of would be to have the values on both sides to be somewhat comparable in scope - that is if one of the values is depicting the grand total then both of them should be. However with the Continuation War such a thing is much harder to do than what it sounds like. Not the least because the Soviets did not separate the strength set against the Finns (or the Germans in the north) from the rest but generally reported everything at front level at best. Same in a sense applies also vice versa - the Finnish reports may only contain the strength of the Finnish units, or they may be including the other units under the Finnish command (for example in summer of 1941 that would also include 2/3 (roughly) of German 163rd ID) while it could leave the Finnish forces under the German command in the north out of this scope. Mind you I'm not saying that either or both sides would be lying - just that great care has to be taken to ensure that the values are comparable. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"As far as I'm aware there is no real consensus on what the number should be or even what it should depict." To me this is an entirely unheard of line of thought. Should the article for WW2, or say the Eastern Front, also only include figures for when both sides were closest to parity? As far as I know the correct thing to do is and has always been to include total figures for the entire war, battle or whichever form of conflict is in question. --FulmenTheFinn (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@FulmenTheFinn: Are they "inaccurate" though? They are both sourced, and thus not inaccurate. They show in 1941 and 1944 since that was the times the war was active. Also btw, what page is the soviet total you added from in the book? The same source is used for the 1944 soviet strength cite, with a specific page number, so that can be re-used with a new page number for this cite if you provide. --Havsjö (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Also maybe, if you have sources, the 1941/1944 strength of Finland could be added in addition to a total (and/or average) strength to "match" the existing Soviet and German 1941/44 strength listings --Havsjö (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Naming

I am surprised to see no discussion of the choice of the name 'Continuation War' as a title of the article, which is obviously and unabashedly pro-Finnish POV. The Finnish name is supposed to legitimise the collaboration with the Nazi aggression and the invasion of pre-1940 Soviet territory as a mere 'continuation' of Finland's legitimate defence against the Soviet aggression in the Winter War. The Russian name 'Soviet–Finnish Front of the Great Patriotic War' is similarly POV, since it presents the war as a natural part of the national defence against the (predominantly) German invasion of 1941 - which, of course, it was. The alternative Russian name 'Soviet-Finnish war of 1941-1945', which is chosen on the Russian wiki, is as objective as possible and a mere statement of fact, hence NPOV. As far as I can see, choosing the name preferred in Finnish historiography in this case could only be justified by a general principle that in any controversial matter involving Russia, the normal and appropriate perspective is the one that is opposed to Russia. Still, since the formulation of the NPOV policy on the English-language Wikipedia does not yet contain such an amendment, I think that the policy, if taken seriously, would require renaming the article to 'Soviet-Finnish war of 1941-1945'. --77.85.55.14 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It likely became a WP:COMMONNAME because Finnish historians participated in Western historical journals during the Iron Curtain. Also, this was just one smaller front for the Soviets, while for Finland this was everything. That way it's not surprising if Finnish sources have been more common. This The Slavonic and East European Review article gives the concise explanation for the name: The name is based on the notion that this war would not have taken place without the preceding Winter War of 1939-40. It does not, however, imply justified collaboration with Nazi Germany without own agency. The so-called driftwood theory (fi:ajopuuteoria) which does that, has not been mainstream among Finnish historians since the 1970s. "Soviet-Finnish war 1941-1945" is not bad, but it should be carefully weighted whether a major topic known under this common name should be changed. --Pudeo (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo I'm in two minds about re-naming. I agree that the name is basically POV, but you're right that it quite probably is the WP:COMMONNAME in English, though the literal meaning of the title could refer to any conflict that is a continuation of another conflict (indeed, before WW2 that's how it would have been understood). However WP:COMMONNAME is pretty much a lock for this title and "Soviet-Finnish war of 1941-1945" is not a title used by anyone. I think this article has other POV issues as well (e.g., taking at face value the idea that Finland was simply a "co-belligerent" of Germany, when most sources -particularly non-Finnish sources- simply say they were a member of the Axis albeit with certain caveats). Another obvious issue is that this conflict was not simply "during" WW2, it was part of WW2. FOARP (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

FOARP Then again, all of the names are mentioned (at least in notes) and explained to at least some degree. I changed "during" to "a part of" as an IP editor, let's see if it flies. I agree that it is a better wording for the relationship between WW2 and the Continuation War (and the infobox anyway says it was a part of WW2). The co-belligerents aspect you already handled - and quite masterfully I would say. 212.239.136.225 (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"The Continuation War was a conflict fought by Finland and Nazi Germany, as co-belligerents"

That Finland and Germany were "co-belligerents" represents the official position of the wartime Finnish government and is actually a controversial statement. It does not reflect the German or Soviet POV. It also does not reflect the position of majority of historical commentators on this topic, particularly from outside Finland, who often simply state that Finland was an Axis country, fighting on the German side, albeit with caveats about them never having signed the Tripartite pact. Whilst we do open up this subject in the main body of the article I think it wise not to state in the voice of Wiki that this was actually the case - therefore I propose to simply edit this sentence to read:

"The Continuation War was a conflict fought by Finland and Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union (USSR) from 1941 to 1944, during World War II."

We can explain that Finland was, officially, according to the wartime Finnish government, not a German ally, later on, as well as other POVs that Finland was basically a German ally (including that in the 1947 Peace treaty signed by Finland - meaning that the official Finnish position at least at that point was that Finland had been a German ally). FOARP (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

FOARP Congrats, a very expertly done edit!! And couldn't agree more. 212.239.136.225 (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Distance to Leningrad

I find this part of the third paragraph misleading:

"By September 1941, Finland had regained its post–Winter War concessions to the Soviet Union [...] However, the Finnish Army continued the offensive past the pre-1939 border [...] halting only around 30–32 km (19–20 mi) from the centre of Leningrad"

It is true that the Finnish army advanced some distance past the pre-1939 border on a section of the Leningrad-facing front (allegedly to straighten the front to make it more defensible), but as far as I can tell, this advance did not bring them any closer to Leningrad than the pre-1939 border had already been, on the coast of the Gulf of Finland. In other words, the closest the Finnish army was to Leningrad, the 30-32 km mark mentioned in the article, was on the pre-1939 border; at no point did the Finnish front advance closer to Leningrad than their original border had already been at its closest, contrary to what the wording of the excerpt above implies. --91.153.206.21 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of the Soviet Union (1936–1955).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Motives for Finland Joining the Invasion of the USSR

The introduction states confidently that Mannerheim wanting East Karelia and the president wanting a Greater Finland were among the possible explanatory factors for Finnish entry to the war. No source is provided.

I tried verifying this in both English and Swedish, and found no credible source corraborating this. I did manage to make a couple of relevant observations, one of which I have a source for.

1) It is unclear and a matter of debate whether Mannerheim wanted East Karelia as stated in the introduction, or just to regain its pre-Winter War borders. Source in Swedish, link goes directly to a PDF, I promise it's safe!

2) I am simply unable to find a reputable well-cited source on wether the President wanted a Greater Finland. There might well be a source out there using that term, but it is very misleading to, withouth any qualifiers, link to the Wikipedia site on Greater Finland. This could for a reasonable reader imply that the president wanted to annex both St. Petersburg and Estonia. This is clearly not the case. It is therefore important to establish what precisely the Finnish president wanted to gain from the Soviet Union. It might be that he only wanted its lost territory back, as is possible for Mannerheim.

The introduction currently gives the reader an impression that the Finns were not only irredentist but also revisionist and expansionist. The Finns were, as far as I am aware, very serious about their war being a very limited one (not joining the Siege of Leninggrad as the common example) This is problematic if this turns out to be untrue; it would also mischaracterize two key Finnish leaders.

I would suggest removing these claims from the introduction until better source-material is found. This should include the unsourced implication and inference that Finnish participance in the war was partly due to the Soviet bombing raid on Finnish cities. A simple observation stating that the USSR bombed Finland before hostilities broke out can probably stand, but needs a "source-needed".

Also - if anyone finds a decent source providing some better answers, please share it as it is relevant for a project I am working on. I just created a Wikipedia-account, so I hope I will be forgiven for making some suggestions without actually editing the text in the main article. I want to make sure I learn a little more about Wiki before I start doing that. Skuggigkul (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Skuggigkul - No source will be provided in the introductory section of the article, which is only intended to summarise what is said in the body-text of the article in which citations are provided. I see numerous citations provided for that assertion lower down - is it your assertion that these are not correct? FOARP (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Calling a halt

This line in the lead, "...but the Finnish Army halted the offensive in August 1944" raises more questions than it answers for me. At Vyborg–Petrozavodsk offensive, it's apparent that Soviet logistics problems as well as Finnish resistance and preparedness were a factor. Also, when "...the Finnish Army...halted only around 30–32 km (19–20 mi) from the centre of Leningrad", why doesn't the lead say who halted them? In the current style, the Finns do all the halting, both of themselves and of others. Stara Marusya (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The Finns won the final battles of the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive, whereby the Soviet advance westward stopped. Hence, the Finns halted the offensive.

The Finns themselves decided to stop their offensive on the Karelian Isthmus in 1941. The Soviets were not involved with this. The Germans actually pressed the Finns to continue with the offensive into Leningrad. Betelgeuse X (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hitler's Title

There is a line in Relations between Finland, Germany and Soviet Union that raises some debate as to its word choice in referring to Hitler. "On 31 July 1940, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler gave the order to plan an assault on the Soviet Union...". Referring to Hitler as 'Chancellor' seems outdated especially at this point in time he had already seized absolute power within Germany, invaded Poland, and conquered France. Using 'chancellor', although it was a political title he held from 1933-1945, inadvertently masks his true position as dictator. A more fitting title should be used; perhaps 'Führer und Reichskanzler' should be used instead since he proclaimed himself as that later in 1934. Maybe just 'Führer' should be used since by that time the 'und Reichskanzler' had largely been dropped. JumbledPasta (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to simply not have a title there. Either the reader knows who Hitler was, and "Hitler gave the order..." is completely understandable, or they don't and neither "Chancellor", "Führer und Reichskanzler" or "Führer" is likely to make the sentence easier to understand. Ljleppan (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be the most reasonable way to proceed. The link would dispel any confusion if a reader had any. JumbledPasta (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Notes 7, 8, 9 and 11

In the notes listed above there are numerous amounts of references. Why are all these references in notes, and are so many references really needed? I've looked through them and a handful of them are never even used in the main prose but only in these confusing notes. Multiple of the same citations within these notes are used to cite different sections of prose. JumbledPasta (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

(I've changed the display of the notes, the above are now notes [g], [h], [i] and [k])

I don't know the history behind these notes, but they do read as attempt to skirt criticism of "too many references in one place". I'd say remove [g], rescuing what refs are needed to the relevant section. Notes [h] and [i] should be inlined to start with, and then either condensed or dispersed throughout the segments cited to them so that it's more clear what ref is cited for each bit of the text. If the result of that is still a large number of refs in one go, I'd prefer to condense them as much as possible.

Note [k] should probably just be removed. The following sentences already describe the differing viewpoints in a way that is much more useful to a reader than a bare list of five refs. If some of the refs in [k] are worth rescuing, I'd promote them to short summarizing sentences in the prose. Ljleppan (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll also note that the latter half of [m] (Armies do not usually leave undestroyed guns behind and we can assume that Soviet army was no exception. So the number of guns left behind and lost by Soviet army is likely much higher.) is getting rather OR'y. Ljleppan (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Post-war trials

I think it'd be good to mention the post-war trials of Finns for treatment of POWs (e.g. Karl Lennart Oesch#Trial for war crimes) and Einsatzkommando Finnland. A natural place would be in "§ Aftermath and casualties §§ Soviet Union". Presumably this would include some discussion of fi:Lista 1:n vangit. Where this gets complicated is fi:Leinon vangit. Any ideas on how to handle these? The other big trial, war-responsibility trials in Finland is already wikilinked under "§ Aftermath and casualties §§ Finland and Germany". Ljleppan (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Length of Porkkala lease in infobox

The infobox currently reads Porkkala Peninsula leased by the USSR for 12 years as one of the territorial changes. While this is how long the lease ended up being in practice, it risks leaving the reader with an understanding that 12 years was the full term of the agreed-upon lease. I think it'd be better to list the original lease term (50 years) in text, with perhaps an {{efn}} adding the additional information about the lease being broken early. Any thoughts? Ljleppan (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favor of just having 'Porkkala Peninsula leased to the USSR for 50 years'; then we can just include the note to describe how the Soviets only held it for 12 and returned it in 1956 to the Finns. Also I don't think there is any mention of the Porkkala Peninsula being returned anywhere in the article so it definitely should be added. JumbledPasta (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I added the information discussed above both in the infobox and in the 'Aftermath and Casualities' section. If you could look over both of them to ensure they fulfill what you were originally looking for I'd appreciate it. JumbledPasta (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Ljleppan (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Results

In the infobox, it states 'Soviet victory' which is a completely reasonable and evident claim. However, are 3 citations really necessary? I don't think that this needs any specific references, much less three, given it's not controversial. JumbledPasta (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really, there isn't the same controversy about the result in this war as there is with the Winter War. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Date for British Declaration of War on Finland

I've looked throughout the article and it is repeated stated that the U.K. declared war on Finland on 6 December 1941. However, on page 54 in the second volume of the 'British Foreign Policy in the Second World War' (available through archive.org) section of the History of the Second World War, which is the official history of British involvement throughout the war and was published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, it states that Britain declared war on Finland on 5 December 1941. Why is there a discrepancy between these two dates? And why is the date of 6 December frequented restated not just on this article but even in the Finland in World War II article and various other periodical online sources? Which one should be used in this article as the official date of the declaration? JumbledPasta (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

[Platonov-p.178-1] General S. P. Platonov: "Our forces did not succeed to advance to the Finnish-Soviet border ... the Finnish war command stopped the attack of the Soviet forces from the Karelian Isthmus deep inside Finland." 'Bitva za Leningrad, 1941-1944' ("Битва за Ленинград"), p. 178. Editor: General S. P. Platonov. Publisher: Voenizdat Ministerstva oborony SSSR. The Soviet Union. 1964.

[Manninen2008-2] Manninen, Ohto (2008). Miten Suomi valloitetaan: Puna-armeijan operaatiosuunnitelmat 1939-1944 ("How Finland is Conquered: Operational Plans of the Red Army, 1939-1944" (in Finnish). Helsinki: Edita. ISBN 978-951-37-5278-1.

[Ehrnrooth-3] Statement by General Adolf Ehrnrooth: "The Continuation War ended in a (Finnish) defensive victory in the most important meaning of the term." Pro Karelia. December 17, 2003.

[1]

[2]

[3]

Original research in this article

Another OR in this article

Recommended reading

Another discussion regarding OR

Fixing OR

Baryshnikov

Baryshnikov cites are inadequate -- requesting quote per WP:Verifiability#Accessibility

"Reconquest of ..." etc

Misrepresentation of source in infobox

Quotes added to the article

Biased

Inconsistent information across articles

External links modified

External links modified

Puppet regimes

Soviet bombs

Changes to the POW section

Result

Heinrichs misspelled in maps

Finland and the siege of Leningrad

External links modified

Proposed infobox modifications.

BRD on 6:06 AM vs. 06:06

Archive of uncited material

External links modified (February 2018)

RFC: Scope of "result" included in the infobox

Aftermath and death toll of Siege of Leningrad

Война-продолжение in preamble

Lead citations

Starting GA build-up

Making short citations consistent

Proposed correction on a date and a number

Removal of FGAN tag

Misleading information about Soviet bombing targets in Finland on 25 June 1941

Initial operations section

Why are the listed Soviet strength figures so inaccurate?

Naming

"The Continuation War was a conflict fought by Finland and Nazi Germany, as co-belligerents"

Distance to Leningrad

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Motives for Finland Joining the Invasion of the USSR

Calling a halt

Hitler's Title

Notes 7, 8, 9 and 11

Post-war trials

Length of Porkkala lease in infobox

Infobox Results

Date for British Declaration of War on Finland