This needs to go back to the article talk page or, perhaps more appropriately, move on to an RFC. Cases generally have a 2 week lifespan here and are automatically closed if they go beyond that without an edit during any 24 hour period. This case was filed during DRN's now-failed experiment with subpaging, so that hasn't happened, but it would have yesterday, if not previously. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The term "blitzkrieg" has been present in the article for as long as possible. Starting in 2009, certain editors suggested that "blitzkrieg" should be excluded from the article. Such opinions got nowhere due to lack of reliable sources to support them. These were long before I made my first edit in the article. Not long ago, an editor began flushing out blitzkrieg from the article. I felt it wasn't too bad if he was just trying to tone its usage down. But recently, the editor decided to flush out the last instance of Blitzkrieg from the article. I opposed it and pointed out that there are three sources (cited in the article) that explicitly support the usage of the term in that very paragraph – i.e. the Citadel plan exemplified blitzkrieg. Note that this refers to just the intention of Citadel. The actual campaign turned out to be a crawl. The editor returned with the backup of three other editors and challenged the inclusion of the term in the article. I requested that they should bring forward the sources that claim that the Citadel plan didn't envision a blitzkrieg operation. Not a single source could be produced. However, they pointed out several other sources never called it a blitzkrieg despite dealing with Citadel. This is true. But I told them that silence on a subject doesn't translate to disapproval or approval for the subject. But they insisted that since the campaign, anyways, turned out not to be a blitzkrieg irrespective of whatever the intentions were, there was enough reason to completely exclude the term from the article. They concluded that they have the majority in editor consensus and therefore went ahead to flush out the term. I pointed out that we do not have any sources disputing this; we have sources supporting it; and all we have are some editors disputing it; therefore, when all said and done, there is not much justification for this consensus reached by the three editors. No one budged.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive discussion (over 70 KB of readable prose) to clarify all the underlying rationale behind the opinions of the different parties.
How do you think we can help?
Opening comments by Gunbirddriver
The events are mischaracterized in EyeTruth’s summary.
The main issue is to write the article succinctly and in a manner which clearly communicates the events to the reader. The term “blitzkrieg” was not used by the German military to describe their operational methods, and is a term that is poorly defined and misunderstood. Further, the term does not match the battle in either its planning or execution.
The article was in the process of being re-worked with three editors (Sturmvogel 66, EyeTruth and myself) being the primary parties involved in the process. EyeTruth inserted into the article the phrase:
Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel), was to be a classic blitzkrieg, eschewing attrition for a swift and efficient strike, featuring a double envelopment with pincers originating from the faces of the salient and directed at Kursk which would surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient
As shown here.
The description offered above does not describe classic Blitzkrieg warfare. This was removed in a rewrite. EyeTruth then inserted it again here.
This was reverted and he was told to start a discussion about it. He then reverted again here, claiming that no one had started the discussion topic for him. It was pointed out to him that the format is Bold Edit, Revert and Discuss, with the onus being on him to initiate the discussion. The discussion was entered into to the tune of about 100 kilobyte. Four editors (Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus and myself) weighed in saying they were opposed to the inclusion of the term. They provided various reasons and sources. All of these were rejected out of hand by EyeTruth, who then on his own recognizance and without the support of any other editor inserted the phrase into the text again here. Another 100 kilobytes of discussion ensued, and editor Binksternet removed the phrase. EyeTruth then reverted again here, which Binkersternet reverted, and EyeTruth reverted again
here,
which had to be reverted back by Sturmvogel 66. I submitted a complaint against EyeTruth for tendentious editing here. It was at this point that EyeTruth submitted this topic for discussion here at Dispute resolution. He is a tad late for this step, and none of the other editors have softened in their opinion on the matter. If anything, the experience has hardened them into more strongly wishing to oppose.
It would appear EyeTruth is using this forum to again assert his opinion. I doubt he has any real interest in resolving anything, unless it is resolved to align with his own views. It’s a sad affair, and most of us are quite tired of it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion does not take place in opening comments. They are for the opening comment of the named user only. Discuss in the appropriate section below.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Woow... take it easy there. You didn't even inform me that you submitted a complaint. I'm just knowing about this now. And you're really making this into your personal war. Also, what I described above is exactly as it happened. Do you mind pointing out any statement I made in the above description that is false? Also in your post above, you categorically failed to mention that none of you have provided a single sources to support your contention for the inclusion of the term.EyeTruth (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? That was a notification from 18 June for a complaint you posted the same day. WTH. You posted another one on 1 July and even up till now have not notified me. What kind of twisted game are you trying to play here? You're making this more and more too personal, which is not a good idea. But whatever, it's no big deal. Let's no clog up this discussion with this side story.EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all part of the same complaint. I asked the administrators how to add to the initial complaint and they instructed me to make a new entry. You were notified that a complaint was filed on June 18th. A result from that complaint is still pending. It is hard to see how you could consider yourself an injured party, when the notice was placed directly on your talk page. What more would you expect me to do, notify you that I am updating the complaint? That's a bit much, don't you think? Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm supposed to know about this "new entry" (a new section) you created on some noticeboard? Oh yeah, I forgot, I know everything. Psssshh. So much BS. EyeTruth (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are again mischaracterizing events. How do you expect people to consider anything that you are saying to be valid when your mischaracterizations are shown to be false? Look, it’s nothing personal on my part, I just want to get on with improving the article. That’s what most of the editors want.
Here is what you said on my talk page back in the middle of May:
Unless you mean that we should avoid the use of the "Blitzkrieg" altogether, to give way for more universally acceptable phrases? If that is the case, then I won't object since it seems some readers still get nonplussed at the use of "Blitzkrieg" in such a way, even though I think it is not necessary and could be tedious making all the changes. EyeTruth (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, removing the term "Blitzkrieg" from the article is a good idea, for the reasons I mentioned above.Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up, those "some readers" is you. Also you conveniently forgot to include the sentence that followed: "But if you mean wholly eliminating any passage in the article with "Blitzkrieg", then I doubt anyone will consider such a crusade acceptable." I believe the agreement I reached for is crystal-clear. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Back in May you insisted on eliminating the term. You didn't even give any legit reasons besides: "Soviet plans and preparations [section] should not include a paragraph about how the "Blitzkrieg" had never been stopped before. I removed that paragraph because it was misleading in content and misplaced in the article." EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your main reason was that things were all over the place in the article. On those grounds, I cut you a slack back then. But that was before I realized a lot more about your modus operandi. I made that clear in the my post dated 01:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC) on Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you did not really mean what you told me. Look, an inordinate amount of the editors' time has been burned up on this question, and they find it to be unproductive. For the proof just look at your own talk page. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I only know of Sturmvogel on my talkpage. I already told you that you may not want to keep referring to yourself as "other editors" or "inordinate amount of the editors" as you always often do. I've said it before. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Also Diannaa only opposed its inclusion only because she couldn't verify that it was in the cited sources. Obviously, it is in the cited sources, but she never returned to tell us whether she was able to verify it. EyeTruth (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what Diannaa said:
I agree that the Battle of Kursk does not fit the usual definition of Blitzkreig (23:39, 17 June 2013).Gunbirddriver (talk)
But you also conveniently forgot to also add her final statement: "You are wrong when you say we have to prove that it was not Blitzkreig or it stays in. You are the one who wants to add the content, so you are the one who has to defend its addition. We can't use the term Blitzkreig to describe the German attack unless at least one of the sources uses the term."
And to begin with, Dianna didn't have it together during that discussion, as we all know her claim that none of the cited sources supported the inclusion of the term is blatantly false. Unfortunately, she never returned to conclude what she started. At any rate, we had three secondary sources supporting its inclusion back then, but we now have about 6 sources supporting it thanks to Binksternet.EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She then asked for the sourcing materials. You are mischaracterizing what others are saying, and not in an accidental fashion, but always in a manner that would seem to support your own position. People do not like that. It is unlikely that you will be able to gain their support when you treat them in this poor fashion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have still categorically failed to point out any incorrect statement in the description I submitted. EyeTruth (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just refuse to recognize them. The entire characterization you offered was false from beginning to end. How then can we help you see the problem? I do not entirely understand the issue with you, but I know that you will see this response as another attack against you personally, and a marker that I have some interest in specifically opposing you. That has been the case all along. Really, I don't want anything to do with you. It is of little use trying to discuss things with you, as you do not seem have the capacity to honestly converse and apparently have very little ability to view things from another person's perspective. I have bent over backward and patiently tried to explain things to you. I cannot further help you resolve the issue. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, it should be very simple for you to point out just one false statement in the description. If you can't, then you're simply grasping at straws. I doubt there is anybody who won't be able to see through it. EyeTruth (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments by Binksternet
Blitzkrieg is a difficult-enough topic to define, with multiple observers describing it in various ways. Classic blitzkrieg is exemplified by Germany's lightning invasion of France in 1940, the pushing of the British to Dunkirk, and the initial attack on the Soviet Union in 1941. Other than these examples which are agreed upon by all observers, the concept is too muddled and debated to be applied specifically to Kursk as a "classic blitzkrieg" in the manner preferred by EyeTruth.
Instead, most of those historians who describe Kursk as some form of blitzkrieg say that it was a failed blitzkrieg, not a classic example. In M.K. Barbier's Kursk 1943, Barbier says on page 10 that the Germans tried blitzkrieg tactics in Poland in 1939; a position with few historian supporters. Barbier then says that Kursk was intended to be blitzkrieg by the Germans but it failed because the Soviets had found the proper defense for it. Hedley Paul Willmott writes in The Great Crusade, page 300, that Kursk was where the blitzkrieg myth was broken because of the effective Soviet defense in depth. Niklas Zetterling and Anders Frankson say the same thing in Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis, page xi. Even Glantz who is EyeTruth's main source describes Kursk as the death of blitzkrieg. Kursk cannot be called "classic blitzkrieg". Binksternet (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is the point. It was intended to be another blitzkrieg but it failed epically. Obviously Citadel was a crawl. It was no blitzkrieg, but it was expected to be. Many army-level (and above) orders were all talking of shattering the soviet defenders in one, two or three days, and achieve operational freedom. Starting from day one of the offensive, those expectation and dreams were shattered. EyeTruth (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opening comments by Sturmvogel 66
Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.
The term blitzkrieg is so widely (mis)used that it has lost much of its specific meaning and, without a definition, the specific meaning of the term as used by an author is open to interpretation by readers. Most of the authors on Kursk don't actually define the term or do so broadly that it applies to pretty much any German attack anywhere and is thus useless in determining if the German plan for Kursk was a blitzkrieg. I'm partial to the definition used by the German military historian Karl-Heinz Friesner in his book on the French Campaign. I quoted it in full on the talk page, but the key part that he includes is that the operation must be going deep. Whatever else you can say about the plan, Citadel did not involve deep operations like Fall Blau, Operation Typhoon, or Operation Barbarossa. So, to my mind, it was not a blitzkrieg. That said, Friesner's definition isn't everyone's, so I think that the best thing to do is not to characterize it at all, following in the footsteps of the many historians who do not characterize in any form. EyeTruth disagreed, insisting on using the term as used by Clark and totally discounting the lack of use of the term by many other historians and participants. I believe that EyeTruth needs to learn the value of the silence between the spaces, much like the significance of the dog that did not bark in the night.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Hello, I am Smileguy91, a DRN volunteer. Consensus has been reached, but there is WP:CCC. Hopefully a wider consensus can be reached with this DRN post. smileguy91talk 22:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BTW, I what to know whether consensus is decided by number of editors voting for a motion or is it by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy? I'm not very old on here. And what I read in the policies about consensus seem to differ a lot from what I hear from other editors. So I would really want to know what is the "unspoken" norm. EyeTruth (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of both, votes alone dont constitute consensus, especially when just in the form of a simple majority (not well over 50%). -- Nbound (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So number of votes does matter to an extent. Thanks. Everyone seemed to be playing along that unspoken norm even though the policy never explicitly said so. I've been wondering ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was considering suggesting that this be moved to WP:RFC, since it's not really a dispute, per se, but now I believe it belongs here. smileguy91talk 14:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My personal — and I emphasize that this is just personal — quick rule of thumb for consensus is 3 to 1 if the 3 have an overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree argument, 4 to 1 with a somewhat weaker but still pretty strong argument, and 5 to 1 with an argument which is merely reasonable, and in each case that's if the 1 has a merely reasonable argument. If the 1 has a strong or very strong argument, higher ratios are required. Theoretically, if the 1 has one of those overwhelming, no-one-could-reasonably-disagree arguments then the number on the other side shouldn't make any difference, but you have to then ask whether if his argument is so great why isn't anyone else buying it. Note that this analysis only applies when there is no solution mandated by policy. When policy mandates a solution, policy wins, unless a local exception is established, but that also has to be done by consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC) (a DRN volunteer)[reply]
Your personal rule of thumb is judicious and fair IMO. I have another question about the voting thing. If the minority editors has several reputable secondary sources that explicitly support their side of the argument, will those sources also be counted each as one vote? EyeTruth (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the first volunteer has quit. So what now? EyeTruth (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I'm the specialized DRN closer. I'm typically called in when DRN threads have gone a bit too long. I'd like to see if I understand the problem. On one side there's a request to add the term blitzkrieg to the article on the grounds that some sources report the intention of the battle. On the other side, there's a request to remove the term due to none of the sources describing the battle use the term. Is this correct? Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly correct, but not exactly. On one side there's a request to retain the term blitzkrieg in the article on the grounds that some sources report the intention of the battle as such. On the other side, there's a request to remove the term because some other sources describing the battle do not use the term.EyeTruth (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Analogy: sources A, B, C describe courage as a virtue; whereas sources D, E, F also describe courage but are silent on whether it is a virtue or not. Therefore, since not every source on the subject of courage describes it as a virtue and since we (as editors) can easily see that courage may not always be a virtue depending on the circumstances, therefore we can't include it in the article. (Albeit not a single source that argues that courage is not a virtue has been brought forward). In this analogy, "courage" is "Operation Citadel", and "virtue" is "blitzkrieg". The thing about "depending on the circumstances" in the analogy represents the argument that Operation Citadel, irrespective of the original intention, turned out to be the opposite of blitzkrieg (and sources explicitly agree including those that described the intention of the operation as a blitzkrieg). EyeTruth (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the discussion thread and now the continuing stream here, I am seeing a specific pattern. While I do not have access to the literature myself, based on the representations and characterizations I think that the "After the battle" characterization cannot be blitzkrieg outright. The definition laid out at the blitzkrieg page doesn't seem to qualify at this specific battle. I also observe that in the 2 sources given to assert the claim we have 1 that (at the time of the writing of the reference) did not have the qualified expertise or the references to be making the assertion of categorization. This source is also the one that is heavily relied upon to back up the categorization. I think with the significant demonstration of expert sources and the relative inexpertiese of the opposition, it would be best to leave the term Blitzkrieg out of the Battle of Kursk article. I do see behavior on the part of certain editors of refusing to accept that a consensus backed up by the expert sources. Obviously Consensus can change, but the issue should not be tested for a while so that further sources regarding the event can be gathered and presented in a logical manner. It is not logical to demand sources that explicitly deny a categorization. The fact that a categorization is not explicitly stated is an implicit assertion that the subject is not specifically categorized. Hasteur (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you just addressed is almost irrelevant to the dispute. You are addressing "After the battle" when the dispute is for "Before the battle." You just went off on a tangent and none of the sources were even claiming a blitzkrieg-characterization for "After the battle." I don't know what you saw that made you think the sources were asserting such a claim. In fact, I don't even know what you read anymore. I'm beginning to see a trend here. Editors read just a few paragraphs of the long discussion in the talkpage and jump to the conclusion that since my tone is kind of harsh, I must be some ignorant jerk. And then they just sympathize with the other side of the argument. Can't people control their sentiments and call a spade a spade? I'm not asserting that is specifically the case with you Hasteur, since I can't read your mind, but I suspect (in general) that may be the case for some of the editors that had gotten involved in this dispute. They jump to an off-course conclusion at first, and sometimes they later begin to make compromises or simply disappear when their conclusion become untenable. Although I couldn't admit it earlier, I think I can now see how my tone could trigger sentiments that could cloud proper judgement. But try and look beyond the sentiments, if there are any. EyeTruth (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that solution is too heavy-handed. I think the German intention to engage in lightning battle (blitzkrieg) should be briefly described as wishful thinking. The actual battle should be described as a deadly slugfest, whatever is the opposite of blitzkrieg, because of the expert Soviet defense-in-depth. Near the end of the article we can say that Kursk was the death of the blitzkrieg concept. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to intrude, but on the whole, I have to agree with Binksternet. The German forces went into battle looking to crush the Soviets at Krusk, only to be beaten back. The term blitzkrieg doesn't refer to the actual battle in this case, but to the German mindset going in, since a blitzkrieg-style battle proved to be impossible once the Soviet tank commanders started their effective counterattacks. Magus732 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Binksternet and Magus732. I think it should be noted that the Citadel plan called for a rapid (blitzkrieg) campaign but it must be made clear that what really happened was the exact opposite. Many sources (three from me and another three from Binksternet and there are definitely many more) are all on the same line of thought as well. EyeTruth (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved (but not disinterested) comment: I thinks this is a classic example of commentary that needs attribution. "According to X, it was supposed to be a blitzkrieg, but according to Y it was ..." I agree with Sturmvogel that the contrast may not be terribly well defined because not all authors use blitzkrieg to mean the same thing. But at least it gives the reader some idea what is going on. Otherwise it's unclear if the "death of Blitzkrieg", which is the label given several by several authors to this battle, refers to a failed attempt at Blitzkrieg or to a change in German thinking before the battle. E.g. quoting from
Kursk:The Greatest Tank Battle, 1943:
The battle for Kursk resulted in the strategic and operational death of Blitzkrieg. For the first time, the German Blitzkrieg, had not worked, as the Soviets restrained the German advance to shallow operational depths. The failure of the Germans to forge deep thrusts into the Soviet line had a psychological impact for both sides.
Quote from Berlin at War: Life and Death in Hitler's Capital, 1939-45:
Intended as a return to the glory days of the Blitzkerig, Kurks was envisaged by the Germans as an enormous pincer movement, to pinch off a bulge in the front line.
From Kursk: The German View:
General von Knobelsdorff could not capitalize on this success because it occurred on his left, and all of his resources had already been thrown into the center. The very hallmark of blitzkrieg was the concept of reinforcing success wherever it happened and maintaining enough command arrangements to reorient the axis of attack at a moment's notice. Yet what could Hoth have done differently, given the realities of his limited resources?
From The War Aims And Strategies Of Adolf Hitler:
Hoth planned to accomplish his penetration by standard blitzkrieg methods. The two prongs were to meet east of Kursk.
From these you can see various authors see this as a failed blitzkrieg. Not unreasonable to add this POV to the article. Finally, there are some books which do point out that the German plan was in certain ways a different from a blitzkrieg (or a flawed blitzkrieg from its inception):
From Kursk: The Vital 24 Hours:
The major problem with Zeitzler's plan, to attack the Kursk salient, was that aerial photos clearly revealed that the Soviets were building dense and deep fortifications there in order to counter such an attack, and that many Soviet tanks had moved deeper behind the front line. Instead of an open battlefield blitzkrieg, it was going to be a direct charge at dense antitank defences.
From Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare:
Operation Citadel was a German attempt to pinch off the Kursk salient. Unfortunately for them, Kursk was a completely obvious target, and the offensive against it marked a bankruptcy of sorts for German operational thinking. Zhukov could read a map as well as any officer and better than most. Soviet air and ground reconnaissance, as well as partisan groups active in the German rear, were able to draw a remarkably accurate portrait of the German buildup and intentions. Zhukov built no less than eight concentric fortified lines in front of Kursk, with more than 1.3 million men ready for the German blow.
Thanks for hitting the nail on the head. Citadel was planned to run just like in the old days, but Soviet preparations faulted the German intention for Citadel. (I'm not sure why this whole thing is even an issue but I'm not surprised anymore since I've seen enough craziness in our planet and on here. Many dudes can't apply the simplest logic). EyeTruth (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.