Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Article is renamed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I've just restored a mention of this operation sometimes being called Operation August Storm to the lead para. Correct or not, this is a not-uncommon name for the operation (for example, Frank uses it in his book Downfall) and is a very likely search term, so it should be mentioned. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sure. It should be a good reference to those writers who never bothered to do research--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a little unkind Mrg; the misapprehension has been made by many, often with a great detail of research background. Buckshot06(prof) 07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a WP guideline that says I have to be kind to people who edit without reading primary sources?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No, there is a policy on that; there is also policy that we should prefer secondary sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I should have noted that Glantz is a secondary source, primary being in Russian--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with the new sentence. We are now making it explicit that the name Operation August Storm was coined by David Glantz and that it was not used by the USSR or by the Soviet military.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Nor by any academicians in Western militaries as has been implied by some authors--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The current article title is lousy. I suggest renaming it to 'Soviet Invasion of Manchuria'. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the introduction, you will see that the operation was not just an invasion of Manchuria, but also of Japanese-held islands--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the fighting in the Kuriles - but that was a tiny portion of the overall fighting. More to the point - the same argument can be made against the current title. Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Only people with a detailed knowledge of military history know what a 'strategic offensive operation' is and its hardly a common term. 'Soviet Invasion of Manchuria' is much better. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Nick, even fewer people know what Manchuria is today :)
Raul, what does being a small part have anything to do with the name? This is a reference work, and Soviet invasion of Manchuria never existed, so maybe you need to write an article on Fictional wars in Manchuria? :)
I appreciate that in English there are many wartime events that have been completely obscured for operational security, or indeed dumbed-down for the public either by authorities or the subsequent authors and editors. I'm also aware that in the USA everything needs to have a "catchy title" which is how "August Storm" came about. However, the operation under discussion is a part of the Soviet military history, and has no catchy title. Please don't dumb it down for the users of Wikipedia...again--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"the operation under discussion is a part of the Soviet military history" - that's only one side of the conflict, which is also an important part of Japanese military history. The invasion of Manchuria led to the defeat of Japan's single largest field army and played a major role in the Japanese decision to surrender. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Just so we are clear, there was a defensive plan for the Kwantung Army, and that is another article. The Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation can not be a part of the Japanese military history because it was not planned or executed by the Japanese military, but was inflicted on it. Its just that you Nick, like many other English speaking military history enthusiasts, tend to think military history is written only from the English versions of the story. I need go no further then the previously-raised Battle of Britain, which was neither of Britain, nor a battle, and the German side, despite them being the aggressors, is barely mentioned, and is not even linked, seemingly not even deserving a stub status despite representing the operations of Luftwaffe forces at least equal to those of the RAF.
I will have to congratulate you when you write the article on the Japanese defence of Manchuria as Raul would have it.
By the way, Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation was the second "invasion" of Manchuria, the first resulting in the 1924 Mongolian People's Republic.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles on all battles should cover both sides, and there shouldn't be seperate articles for each side. Despite your claim, the Battle of Britain article tries to do this and includes fairly extensive coverage of the German side of the battle. Anyway, this article isn't about the Soviet plan - much of it is about the Japanese forces, the course of the fighting and the Japanese reaction to the operation. If you want to start an article on the Soviet planning and preparations for the invasion then do so, but don't claim this this article covers that topic just because you renamed it. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
But I didn't "rename it" Nick, I simply corrected the name it was given in 1945, despite opposition.
I think that using "common" names for military operations in a reference work is "journalistic". Wiklipedia is not a wartime tabloid, and the readership is somewhat more sophisticated than during the Second World War. Its the promulgation of the Second World War "speak" to continue using this style. What is the result of this? Wikipedia ends up with one large summary article on the Battle of Britain, and four pitiful Fighter Group articles that say nothing about fighter operations in their areas of operation.
If you must know, the operation was a part of the Soviet-Japanese war in 1945, of which this operation was a major, but not the only part. All battles should cover both sides; all smallish battles before 19th century maybe.
When you get into the strategic operations, something you claim no one understands, but I hope you do, covering all sides in a reference article becomes somewhat difficult. Battle of Atlantic (1939-1945) is a case in point.
This is why I have been seemingly battling to get into the heads of some editors in Wikipedia that the militaries of the World prefer to divide really large combat events into their constituent and eminently more manageable parts so they can be planned, executed and later analysed in manageable works, and not glossed over in summaries that are so titled, e.g. Battle of Britian, Battle of Kursk, Battle of the Bulge, and other "battles".
There is also a consideration of "where to start" in creating any article about military history. This is seemingly trivial for many editors who start with the title of a book. I know you will tell me that Wikipedia is for a general reader and not a specialist (but many articles will prove your wrong), but to write something, one has to be somewhat above the "general level" in the knowledge of the subject area. Many moons ago I suggested that all articles about combat events should be, for consistency's sake, written from the starting point of the point of view of the side that conceived the offensive. That fell on deaf ears. And yet that is how operations start, with the concept of the offensive briefing.
Undoubtedly the reaction of the Kwantung Army to the offensive is important. I wish that the view from the other side was a part of editing policy in the MilHist Project since many articles simply lack it. By all means if you can improve the article, do so. However I see no reason to rename the article into something else because the current article somehow leaves the Japanese out of it. Political correctness does not apply in history, and military history in particular. The suggested "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" really sounds journalistic (tabloid) to me. I guess to fully contextualise it, maybe rename it to Soviets invade China!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Endorse 'Soviet invasion of Manchuria.' Buckshot06(prof) 00:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Buckshot06, the epitome of a "yesman"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was name as Soviet invasion of Manchuria

  • Like the rest of the Wikipedia community I object to conduct of straw polls --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I also object to renaming of historical events using original research because some Wikipedia editor thinks the names "look lousy" --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is a good idea. All articles should be renamed so they are easier to understand and read by the less able to do so. In fact we can start with Military History. Lets call it Old war stories--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate what you believe the name of the article should be: Soviet invasion of Manchuria

  1. Endorse as creator of straw poll. Buckshot06(prof) 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support, though Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) may be better still. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Raul654 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC) - to reply to Nick above - Was there more than one Soviet invasion of Manchuria? If not, then the name is unambiguous and I don't see why a year is necessary. Raul654 (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. —WWoods (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support "Soviet invasion of Manchuria". Lawrencema (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - lots of sources talk about the "Soviet invasion of Manchuria"; rather fewer mention the "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation". "Operation August Storm" also had a nice ring to it (being more common than the present title too), but this proposal will do. May I also point out to interested users this edit, which similarly replaced a common name with a far rarer one? Biruitorul Talk 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, well I don't make up history as you go, Biruitorul. Any one can always find something they like better, but in a reference work, the subject should be called what it is, and not what iy sounds better as. I think Romania sounds better as Rumania from the Turkish, Rum, but you would object to that, wouldn't you because of your extreme bias for anything Soviet because Romania was on the loosing side in the Second World War. Not easy to spot your hidden agenda--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    1. Kindly assume good faith and refrain from speculating on a "hidden agenda". 2. You're free to call it Rumania, Roumania, whatever you feel like - no one's stopping you. 3. Last I checked, Romania joined the Allies after the King Michael Coup, placing it on the victors' side (which caused it to regain Northern Transylvania). 4. I certainly detest the Soviet Union, not only because of the Stalinist terror and decades of dictatorship it brought to Romania and at least ten other countries, but because of the death and destruction it wreaked upon its own people, the Gulag Archipelago, the Great Purges, the Holodomor, the Red Terror, the anti-religious campaign from Lenin to Khrushchev and beyond - yes, all that is wretched, hateful, and thankfully consigned to the ash heap of history. But what on earth does that have to do with my desire to change "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" to "Soviet invasion of Manchuria"? Pray tell. 5. Make sure you read my comment carefully. My first choice is "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" because it's the most common in reliable sources, not because it sounds nice. I'm not "making up" anything. My second choice is "Operation August Storm" because it's the second most common but, as an aside, also sounds attractive. Really, there's no need for this sort of reaction on your part. Biruitorul Talk 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support as the best and most understandable name for the general reader as suggested by the naming conventions policy, it also seems to be used more on google scholar and google book than Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. Davewild (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Its original research Dave--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not OR as it is the common name used and is used by many scholarly works such as [1], [2] and on many books. We do not have to use official names but instead the name that the "greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". Davewild (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, August Storm was recognised, but it was a completely made up name by an 11 year old girl. However you miss the point of Wikipedia. Its a reference work not a popular magazine. You can add a redirect for the Soviet invasion of Manchuria if you want, but the actual name of the historical operation is what it now says it is, and always will be if you ever get to primary sources. This is what many editors in Wikipedia do not get to my great surprise. A reference work includes articles that rise above the popular knowledge to actually define the subject matter, starting with their correct names. Because you can find the combination of words in many books on Google search has no bearing on the subject. It just means the author or the editor did not consider reference-quality accuracy important. This teaches you to be careful what books you purchase. REGARDLESS of what anyone will ever wants to call this operation, its original and only name will remain that given by the Soviet General Staff (Stavka). This is just an uncontested fact of history.
  1. Support - this is only another Mrg-type disruptivity case, in order to illustrate his own points of view. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation

  1. This is the only name for the operation possible. Suggestions of the name being "too long" or "not understood" are not supported by any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and in fact run contrary to them given it is a factual and referenced name of a historical event

Other alternatives Oh I understand, its a new Wikipedia silly buggers game [3]. Never say I don't know how to have fun :-) How about Soviet Union-Mongolian People's-Communist Chinese invasion and infiltration of Inner Manchuria (1945)?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Done

Per consensus above i've changed the title of the article to "Soviet invasion of Manchuria". However, the first sentence in the lead starts with both names bolded ("Soviet invasion of Manchuria" and "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation"), so anybody would be happy with this change. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (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.

What is a Strategic Offensive Operation?

Can someone tell me what a Strategic offensive operation is? Wikipedia does not explain the term nor does Google. As far as I can see from the context of what I can find it is a Soviet tactic. So my questions:

  • What is a Strategic Offensive Operation (and where does it differ from other operations)?
  • Is the term a Soviet military jargon for something known under another name by other military or is it indeed a different type of operation compared to other types of warfare? Arnoutf (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is the run down on the components and a downloadable work by Jomini (see page 98) [4]. I will put an article together. The only reason I have not written one yet is because you are only the third person who is unsure of the meaning. The other people to suggest the term may be unknown were User:Buckshot06 who supposedly knows everything about modern militaries and Nick who is a coordinator in MilHist, so would be expected to know the meaning of strategic and offensive.
Strategic - A Strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal, most often "winning." Strategy is differentiated from tactics or immediate actions with resources at hand by its nature of being extensively premeditated, and often practically rehearsed. Strategies are used to make the problem easier to understand and solve.
Offensive (military) - An Offensive is a military operation that seeks through aggressive projection of armed force to occupy territory, gain an objective or achieve some larger strategic, operational or tactical goal. Another term for an Offensive often used by the media is 'invasion', or the more general 'attack'.
Military operation - Parallel to and reflecting this framework for operations are organized elements within the armed forces which prepare for and conduct operations at various levels of war. While there is a general correlation between the size of units, the area within which they operate, and the scope of mission the perform, the correlation is not absolute. In fact, it is ultimately the mission that a unit performs that determines the level of war within which it operates.
Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the term a Soviet military jargon for something known under another name by other military or is it indeed a different type of operation compared to other types of warfare?
"Strategic offensive operation" is not Soviet jargon. All countries use them because they are standard military terms used to describe military operations. However, for security reasons many operations are better known in English by their code names or "common names". Sometimes the "operation" part is left out, and the Strategic offensive only is used. At other times even the strategic is left out. For example what most know as the Battle of Britain was Operation Adler which was the code name designated by the Luftwaffe for their air offensive against Great Britain in the summer of 1940.[5]

This text for example

Extensive operational regrouping during the course of a strategic offensive operation is undesirable because it could lead to loss of momentum and confusion. Commanders should recognize, however, that some regrouping will probably have to take place. In any case, regrouping of armies within an army group or divisions within an army is not likely to occur more than once in a strategic operation, and then only if ordered or approved by the next higher commander.

Tactical regroupings within divisions and brigades, however, occur frequently, since the tactical situation can change often and radically. Another frequent occurrence is reorganization following the commitment of second echelons as the old first echelon becomes a new reserve.

comes not from a Soviet manual, but form the US Army's FM 100-61 ARMOR- AND MECHANIZED-BASED OPPOSING FORCE OPERATIONAL ART, Chapter 5 - Army Offensive Operations, and this is not recent news either [6]

Some authors know the terms and used them, such as "D-Day was a brilliant Allied strategic offensive" in Jarymowycz, Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Lorraine, p.112 [7]
Some operations are not conducted by combat forces, but by intelligence forces [8]
Air forces also do these, as in the books by Alfred Price Battle Over The Reich: The Strategic Air Offensive Over Germany 1939-43--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think making an article what it is would in the end also help your naming dispute (in which I am neutral); as I think it would probably be much more acceptable for many if there is a wikilink to what a Strategic Offensive Operation is. This is after all an encyclopedia talking to the interested lay-person not the specialist ;-). Arnoutf (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed factual accuracy

While the naming of this article has been the subject of long dispute, and is well discussed above, could the user who inserted the factual accuracy tag explain his or her significant problems with the text of the article? Then we could sort out a way to fix them.. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 08:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The tag appears to have been removed now. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Soviet invasion of Manchuria be renamed and moved to Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation.

The article was renamed without requesting a move although consensus for the move was gained. However the new common name of a subject is misleading because territory of Manchukuo, Chinese Republic, Inner Mongolia, the Japanese protectorate of Kuryo and ostensibly Japanese sovereign territory were also invaded at the same time, and does not represent a neutral point of view--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(A) It is not necessary to file a request before moving a page. The procedures under which the page move was conducted were perfectly acceptable. (B) You have made this claim before. You have yet to convince anyone that the current name is not appropriate. Raul654 (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It was apparently perfectly acceptable to you, but happens to be clearly against the definition for polls which in this case was to rename based on (A) "The current article title is lousy" (no justification given), and (B) "what you believe the name of the article should be: Soviet invasion of Manchuria" or ? (no other option given), (C) I'll give the convincing another go, hopefully with more impartial participants in the RM--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The requested name is unclear? In what way? An article name does not need to be clear, that's what the article is for. However, the four words used in the proposed name are far clearer than the four words used in the existing name. The reference by Glantz given clarifies that there was never an Operation August Storm (never mentioned in the paper), and the offensive was not an "invasion of Manchukuo" but of several distinct geographic areas of which Manchuria, as an area and not as a state, were the strategic and operational objectives--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I must disagree: an article's name must be free from significant ambiguity, and should be clear. We could name all articles with arbitrary numerical designations, and leave it to the text to explain what we were talking about in each one, but that would make the encyclopedia much less useful; as we approach that condition, we do proportional harm to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't say that I understand what you mean here--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
If "an article's name must be free from significant ambiguity, and should be clear", then how is an "invasion of Manchuria" relevant to the content of the article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the current title is used much more commonly than that proposed per Biruitorul's post above, and the most common title is what we ought to use by WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs by proscribing "more accurate" usage, we record what is extant in literature - WP:NOT and WP:NAME are clear. Knepflerle (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually common name only applies to people and "things", not historical events. What is extant in the literature use to write the article is the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. You are quite wrong about the "Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs by proscribing "more accurate" usage". The reason I say so is explained in other replies below.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not so see WP:NC#Use the most easily recognized name --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not convinced on the merits of the move. The proposed title sounds like a direct translation of the Russian without any accounting for what the words might acctually mean (For example, in French if we literally translate 'Pomme de terre' we get 'Apple of the earth', and I am sure as heck not eating roast apples of the earth with my chicken!). Beyond that, the current title is one that is a name used in English, albiet a more forgotten aspect of WW2. We have English names so no need to borrow Russian names. Narson (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Which part of Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation is "Russian"? The problem is that we do not have an English name since every military offensive can be said to be an "invasion". In fact this applies at almost every level. A battalion can invade the town. A single aircraft can invade airspace. Its a very ambiguous word that is not used to refer tot eh operation as a whole (see below)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose How is this misleading? The Soviet Union did invade Manchuria, just as the Anglo-Americans invaded Normandy. Both can claimed as just wars, but that is another question, and none of this article's business. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)\
    Upgraded because Mrg's comments below demonstrate that he does not know what the English word invasion means. (And his statements about the Western Theater are nonsense:
    • The Allies invaded Brittany, and arguably Provence, while the invasion of Normandy was still going on.
    • The Normandy Invasion was intended to have strategic effects outside Normandy. Most obviously, it was intended to lead, as it did lead, to the liberation of France and the fall of Berlin. In a shorter term, it was intended to drain resources from the Eastern Front, thus having strategic effects across Europe.
    • Of course there was a wide choice of where to land. Holland was possible, and traditional. There was a counterintelligence opetation intended to deceive the Germans into defending Calais. (Not that this has anything to do with the matter; we are not telling counter-factual history here, and the Soviets did invade Manchuria. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The funny thing about your oppose is that you oppose first and ask questions later. The Allies did invade Normandy (arguably France), but they did not invade Belgium and the islands off the Dutch coast at the same time, right? The Manchurian operation was strategic in the sense that it sough to accomplish several objectives, not all of which were in Manchuria. The suggestion that invasion of Manchuria was all that was included in the offensive is misleading, as is evident from the article content, reference supplied, and every other work written on the offensive, even in works that use the word "invasion". However, if User:Biruitorul actually read the works he found using a keyword search, he would notice that they are divided into two neat groups, those that are general and fail to inform about this "detail" of the simultaneous "invasion" of Korea and Japanese-held islands, and those that allude to the ways in which Manchuria was "invaded", not as a state, but as a territory. The reason for this is because to achieve surprise (maps are useful), the offensive into Manchuria was conducted not by the route expected by the Japanese, but over a mountain range.
Now, User:Narson mentioned apples, so I would like to point out that comparing Invasion of Normandy which was "This article is about the first few weeks of the Invasion of Normandy" is not like comparing apples with apples. Operation Overlord is the real equivalent to the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, because the Normandy landings only became an "invasion" of Normandy by the virtue of the difficulties of the breakout form the beaches, a tactical or at best an operational set of circumstances. In the Red Army's case forces involved were much larger. So, why isn't Operation Overlord named Allied invasion of Europe? It even says so in the Invasion of Normandy article, "Allied invasion of northwest Europe". That's what Jane's call it. Britannica also. Time-Life Books that have put out lots of books on the subject also call it that. Go do a search in Amazon and see what comes up:
1943:The Victory That Never Was (why Allied invasion of Europe should have taken place in 1943 & not 1944) by John Grigg
Operation Overlord, Design and Reality: The Allied Invasion of Western Europe by Albert Norman
Defenders of Fortress Europe: The Untold Story of the German Officers during the Allied Invasion by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr.
Voices of D-Day: The Story of the Allied Invasion Told by Those Who Were There (Eisenhower Center Studies on War and Peace) by Ronald J. Drez
Yank: Memoir of a World War II Soldier (1941-1945) - From the Desert War of North Africa to the Allied Invasion of Europe by Ted Ellsworth
D-Day Landings: The Story of the Allied Invasion (DK Readers) by Richard Platt (DK does massive trade)
But than there is not much similarity at all because there was not much of a choice where to land in France when coming from England, is there? On the other hand the Red Army had a front about equal to that of the entire European one they were occupying in Germany to conduct an offensive on in the Far East. And that is where we hit a "sticky wicket" as they say. Was there an Allied invasion of Germany? There is no article for it in Wikipedia. It turns out there was no "invasion" of Germany. Instead, the Americans called it "Central Europe Campaign", and it was part of "The Western Front of the European Theatre of World War II]][9].
So, why is it that the Western Allied operations get named with their proper names, and the Soviet operations have to be renamed to some journalistic jargon? Is the objective of Wikipedia to inform readers what they already know, or "add value"? All of you opposing here are supposed to have some knowledge of the military history, and yet all I see is belligerent discrimination based on nothing but twisting of naming convention that doesn't even apply.
  • The actual convention that does apply is that of events. Military conflicts are explicitly included. What the convention says is

If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name. Otherwise, create a name using these guidelines. In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors:

  • Where the incident happened.
  • What happened.
  • The universally agreed-upon common name for an event was "Operation August Storm" which was fictitious. Stooping to the low level of Google Searches, "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" gets 1,800 hits of which (after 10 pages) I would say 60-70% would qualify for tertiary sources. Just to illustrate the company you are in, one of Wikipedia "competitors" is called World History at KMLA (?) which offers this list

Wars of the USSR 1922-1955

  • 1929 Soviet Invasion of Manchuria (China)
  • 1936-1939 Spanish Civil War
  • 1938 Soviet-Japanese Clash on Manchurian Border (Lake Khasan)
  • 1939 Soviet-Japanese War over Mongolia
  • 1939 WW II : Soviet Occupation of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
  • 1939 WW II : Soviet Occupation of Eastern Poland
  • 1939-1940 WW II : Winter War (Invasion of Finland)
  • 1940 WW II : Soviet Occupation of Bessarabia, N. Bukovina
  • 1941-1945 World War II : German Invasion
  • 1944-1949 Latvian Partisan War against Soviet Occupation, Annexation
  • 1944-1952 Lithuanian Partisan War against Soviet Ocupation, Annexation
  • 1945 WW II : War with Japan
  • 1953 East German Uprising
So why was Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1929 not recorded as such? Why is there no Soviet invasion of Estonia? Why is there no German invasion of Soviet Union?
However, the far more important question so far as Wikipedia is concerned, can the article be referenced as per the verifiability policy by using the sources suggested by User:Biruitorul? After all, if that is the most common name, then the authors of the 181 publications who use it must be very commonly informative about the events of the offensive.
Edward J. Drea, "Missing Intentions: Japanese Intelligence and the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, 1945," Military Affairs 48(April 1984): 66-73 was incorporated into Glantz's paper. Its the only one mentioned using the "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" in this bibliography, guide to major archival collections, and essay [10]
In Strategic Denial and Deception by Roy Godson, James J. Wirtz, they call it that, but devote less then a chapter to what Glantz deals with in two small books even way back when 25 years go.
In 2003 Glantz republished his 25 year old research supplemented with more information, and replaced "August Storm" to a subtitle in The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, 1945: August Storm. How I wager that Glantz's book is a far better seller, so at least anyone interested in knowing about it woudl have come across the title, and therefore be familiar with the use of Strategic Offensive. He is very specific though in calling it in Manchuria. Of the ten chapters in the book (excluding analysis) only the last deals with operations external tot he operations in Manchuria. Its not like he doesn't use the word "invasion", twelve times in the book, although half refer to other invasions (Finland, Poland, etc.), and a couple to the aborted Hokkaido invasion.
Before Glantz, Maj Harmon Eaton wrote about a Soviet invasion of Manchuria for the US Army in 1976. I'm not sure how commonly available that work is since it was never published that I know of, but for the enterprising, look for this Eaton, Harmon L., Maj. "The Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, 1945: An Analysis of the Element of Surprise." MMAS thesis. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 1976. DTIC ADA 030143.
This is about it. The rest use it in a passing fashion during discussions of foreign policy, international relations before, during and after the war, the general role of the offensive in Japanese surrender, etc. For better or worse Glantz offers the only definitive source of research on the subject in English language and he does not use "Soviet invasion of Manchuria", so why should Wikipedia?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - the commonly used English name, as I showed above, is the current title. This title is neither overly simplistic nor especially misleading. No strong case exists for the proposed title, which is barely found in the relevant literature. Biruitorul Talk 00:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is your opinion.
  • You have not shown any sources that refer to the military events to be referred as such in reliable and relevant sources.
  • It is simplistic because it does not reflect the entire operation, but only a part there of. :*It is a subjective name that does not reflect a neutral point of view--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CON as per earlier discussion, and WP:NPOV; we would be according more importance to the Soviet view rather than the Japanese view if we used this name, which is why, for example, Operation Overlord can be found at Battle of Normandy. Buckshot06(prof) 12:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. - a person or thing, not events.
Consensus = Working with others
Titles come under editing according to Article standards e.g., Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research, not Consensus
Definition of invasion is "An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof.", so if an operation is already called an offensive, why is it necessary to rename it an invasion? Is Soviet invasion of Manchuria = French invasion of Russia? Why isn't Operation Barbarossa called German invasion of Soviet Union? Why isn't Operation Overlord called Allied invasion of France? How about renaming Operation Warden into Australian invasion of East Timor? English invasion of Ireland? United States invasion of Iraq? maybe some of this? Wouldn't hurt in a reference work--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - per voluminous arguments above based on Wikipedia guidelines, conventions and above all policy regarding article standards--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Naming conventions?

Since when do Wikipedia naming conventions need to be included in the article? In any case "the coordinated and integrated invasions of Japan's northern territories is still collectively labelled in English as the Battle of Manchuria" - is? The source is from 1951! It seems to me that was is the more appropriate use--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This could use a better source, but that would not be difficult. This book was published in 2007, and Tucker's Encyclopedia of WWII calls it the Manchuria Campaign. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
You must be joking, right? The book uses Operation August Storm, and follows it up with "Battle of..." as if it was some Napoleonic affair! And why should the Manchurian Campaign be invented based on Tuckers? Is it more authoritative than Glantz on the subject?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The Manchurian Campaign also happens to be the name for the Russo-Japanese War in literature before 1936-37--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 16:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Compare Battle of Britain, Battle of the Atlantic and so on; none of them are in Napoleonic scale. In fact, try reading any of the literature in English on the subject on which you wish to edit articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think you probably know my understanding of the issue. "Battle of" is not a common name, but a generic descriptor used in publishing. In the military history community things get a bit trickier. Other generic descriptors that come to us from the rather limited scope of 18th and 19th century military history are campaign, engagement, skirmish, action, and others. Most are derived from the closest geographic feature to the field of battle. In the 19th century "operation" was unknown as an expression of military activity. And yet it is commonly used in the 20th century. This is because thinking within the military decision-making process evolves, though slowly, and now has expanded past the 19th century. However, the people who wrote about the Battle of Britain, Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) and so on were products of the 19th century, notably Churchill who coined the name for both! Rather a singular point of view of the subjects, wouldn't you say, given the neither name reflects the true nature of the combats.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. Mrg3105 knows the "true nature of these combats", and the rest of us, the primary sources, and the secondary sources, do not. This is precisely the attitude that verifiability, not truth was written to discourage. I stand by my !vote; I may yet be provoked to strengthen it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
How do you get this impression?! I consistently state that what we are after is verifiability and not truth and that sources should be used, and yet you somehow understood this to be the complete opposite of my position! Show me the verifiable and appropriate sources that use Soviet invasion of Manchuria as a name for the operation please--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
These 200+ citations of the exact phrase should do for a start; I see that they include such sources as Tucker's Encyclopedia of World War II and Jonathan Schell. Searching for Mrg3105's suggestion gets 7 hits, only one of them capitalized, all of them in various ways translations from the Russian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Of those, Glantz refers to these events as the Soviet invasion (p. 342); Crofoot and Avazini to the Soviet decision to invade Manchuria. Mrg3105's proposal is as unEnglish as Great Patriotic War, which both books also use, because they are translating Soviet documents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(db)You mean Glantz in the book The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, 1945? And where on the same page he referred to the "unexpected form of the Soviet offensive"? However, you are missing the point PMAnderson. To call it an invasion, is to completely misrepresent the intent, nature and scope of the operation as depicted in the article. I understand that the English thing to do is to completely obscure the issue of a military operation, but this is Soviet/Russian history, and has nothing to do with England or the English language usage other than the fact that it is being presented in English to an English readership.

Do you think that this readership deserves a dumbed down version of another country's history because its in another language? Why do you or anyone in Wikipedia get to decide how and why an event in history is named? Not one of the 239 sources is a secondary one, or even tertiary, and most mention the event in question in passing, and not cited.

And, what makes you the decision maker on the level of detail that is included in Wikipedia? Do you assume that all readers are at student level, and are therefore to be relegated to the World War II: A Student Encyclopedia (p.1422) by Spencer C. Tucker, Priscilla Mary Roberts, Jack Greene? Oh yes, I know he has edited a "full" version Encyclopedia of World War II: A Political, Social, and Military History, but as it happens the entry in both for "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" is identical, and unreferenced on p.1663!

Therefore I quote

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe that Wikipedia should be written in English, not translationese; that we should be optimized for lay readers and not for specialists; that we should, when forced to choose between sources, follow several reliable sources rather than the one one editor happens to like. I have no authority in saying this; but the half-dozen of us who disagree with Mrg have the authority of WP:Consensus. I regret that Mrg agrees with none of these; he will be happier and more productive if he does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What you believe is irrelevant to the discussion. It is common practice to translate foreign to English terms into English. Its ubiquitous in English and in English Wikipedia. Given English as a language is largely a German-French construct, that line of thinking goes "against the grain" of its development.
  • Yes, we should be optimising articles for lay readers and not for specialists, but this is not the issue here either! As it happens the only place the information is available from is from a specialist. Optimise however does not mean obscure and obfuscate.
  • Yes, when forced to choose between sources, follow several reliable sources rather than the one one editor happens to like, but what are those reliable that can be used to edit the article?Again, I am not insistent on using Glantz, but he happens to provide the only authoritative source for the operation. Can you provide others?
  • It is irrelevant how many disagree with me. The point is that the most recent change in title was not based on evaluation of sources, but on a personal dislike by Raul654, and a misapplication of a naming convention.
  • Wikipedia is not a happy farm, so how much happier I will be if I stop is also not congruent to the discussion. As for productivity, may I see the articles you created or improved during this discussion?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On consensus building

I am ever so surprised that so many editors have it wrong about the nature of generating "consensus". Wikipedia is not written by consensus. that is a "long drawn out process of everyone putting their own opinion in". "Putting in own opinion" contravenes three core policies of Wikipedia, more below. So let us examine where consensus comes into play from the top-down understanding of the process of creating Wikipedia.

First and foremost Wikipedia is a reference work, and therefore a collection of facts, not opinions. It says in the reference article "In general, a reference is a relation between objects in which one object designates by linking to another object." Interestingly enough that entire article is written with one solitary reference despite it being linked to "For citing references in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Citing sources."!

A reference work is a compendium of information, usually of a specific type, compiled in a book for ease of reference, such as an encyclopaedia.

An Encyclopedia is a comprehensive compendium. The objective of an encyclopaedia is to inform beyond what one may assume about the object or the subject when lacking information. For this reason it is written by experts in the subject.

One becomes an expert in the subject by doing research, which is what the encyclopaedia reader can not do by themselves, the raison d'etre for being.

While doing research the expert may encounter unchallenged facts, challenged facts, statements of informed opinion, and statements of opinion derived through analysis which may be faulty. There may also be statements of personal feeling on the subject. All these represent alternative points of view of the subject which the expert researcher has to carefully evaluate on their merit, and make a decision to include or exclude from the final edited reference article.

While it is true that "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making.", what many Wikipedia editors seemingly forget is that a decision-making process only commences when a decision needs to be made!

A Decision making can be regarded as an outcome of mental processes (cognitive process) leading to the selection of a course of action among several alternatives. Every decision making process produces a final choice.
Every time Wikipedia editors embark on a decision-making process to reach consensus, it means they have some piece of concrete information that is questionable for inclusion or exclusion due to several alternatives being available. A this stage another process comes into play, verifiability, not truth,

that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.

What this means is that each of the several alternatives is evaluated against the criteria:

  • whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia
  • whether published by a reliable source
  • whether editors can provide a reliable source for any material that is challenged
  • whether the alternative presented offers a Neutral point of view
  • whether the alternative presented is not original research

However, this process only needs to start IF the information already existing in the article does not answer this criteria.

So, let us consider the alternatives in the case of the former Operation August Storm/Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, and the current Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

1. Operation August Storm - Anyone who checks the reference from which it is derived will realise there never was such an operation although the source is reliable. This is the basis on which I challenged it. NPOV does not apply because no one can be more neutral than an 11 year old child, and the title itself does not express any POV other then that it was raining. The name is not original research because the only research undertaken was that the girl noted the operation was in August, and there were rainstorms at the time! Aside from NOR, the other Wikipedia requirement which seems to be implied rather than explicit is that SOME research must be attempted before writing an article! This means the reference works need to be read.

2. Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation - Anyone who checks the reference provided in the article and available online will realise that this is the actual name of the operation. Citations to Soviet works are provided (secondary sources). In the more recent republishing of that research Glantz also provides citations of primary sources. His works on the subject are the most widely available sources to readers that deal with the entire aspect of the operation. In general he has not been challenged on the research aspect of the published works, and only to a degree on the analysis. Glantz is therefore considered a reliable source. Neither the original title, nor the new one expresses any POV on the subject, but simply states where, (by whom in the most recent book) and in what manner the the operation was conducted, adding the scope for good measure. It is clearly not original research because Glantz does not express any feelings on the subject that are unsupported by facts derived from primary or secondary sources.

3. Soviet invasion of Manchuria - If the average reader seeks more information by wanting to purchase a book in Amazon.com, he/she will not find a book by this title. The first book is by Glantz. The second Manchuria Under Japanese Dominion (Encounters with Asia) by Shin'ichi Yamamuro and Joshua A. Fogel who only mention an invasion on "front matter". They mentions the "Japanese invasion of Manchuria" which Wikipedia says is known as the "Mukden Incident". From the "back matter" we find that they thought "Soviet strategic invasions continued until August 20 in the former Manzhouguo, until August 26 in Sakhalin, and until October 5 in the Kuriles" (p.282). The next book is again Glantz's The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, 1945: 'August Storm (Cass Series on Soviet (Russian) Military Experience, 7), so now we see that both an expert on the subject and seemingly another expert from the Japanese side agree that the "invasion" was strategic. In the The Military History of the Soviet Union by Robin Higham and Frederick W. Kagan. The interesting thing about this source is that it provides a wider perspective that will influence the rest of the criteria for decision making, namely Neutral point of view. It seems that there were many invasions in the history of Soviet Union. Some of these were perpetrated by the Soviet Union, and some were perpetrated by it. Those that were executed against Soviet Union are few, and one notable such invasion was by Germany in 1941. It seems that this invasion is called Operation Barbarossa, and the fact that it was a Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union is not suggested in the introduction as an alternative name for the article. The Soviet invasion of Finland is however a redirect for the Winter War. The List of invasions is most illustrative in both definition of what an invasion is, and what can be called as such. However, just so I am not accused of being verbose again, and I am, by calling the article a Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Raul654 who suggested it expresses a distinctly non-neutral point of view that it was an invasion. An invasion is a matter of point of view just like massacre, or a forced occupation. One's massacre is another counter-insurgency action. One's invasion is another's liberation. So why not Soviet liberation of Manchuria? In the naming of the article, it seems that the point of view expressed is one that presupposed Soviet Union to be the aggressor. However, the rather obvious fact is that it was the Japanese Army which occupied various parts of China by force, and which was a part of a strategy that eventually let to December 7, 1941, and a general war in the Pacific Theatre. Seemingly Soviet forces were as much liberators of these territories as were the forces of its Allies from the United States and the Commonwealth. So, the invasion of Japan at Okinawa is called "Battle of Okinawa, also known as Operation Iceberg", and not Allied invasion of Japan, although it was surely an intended invasion of Japanese sovereign territory, but an offensive to liberate parts of China is called an invasion when it comes to Soviet Union because...it sounds better. Is there anyone who suggests that Soviet Union aggressively invaded the state of Manchukuo? No. The reason is simple. Although notionally the Soviet Union did recognise the puppet state before the war, due to its alliance with the United States which did not recognise it, the diplomatic recognition of the Manchukuo was withdrawn during the first years of the alliance. So, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in accordance with the agreement at the Yalta Conference, and invaded Manchukuo from outer Manchuria. That is why the Soviet command called it Manchurian operation. The Soviet forces never Manchuria technically although it doesn't say so on their maps for obvious political reasons considering the developed relationship with the Chinese Communists. Later this cause Sino-Soviet border conflict. Of course the western pincer of the strategic operation conducted on a front of over 3300km (excluding amphibious operations) came from Mongolian territory to deny the Japanese forces in and around Beijing, and the Expeditionary Army in the South, the way out of China thanks to the strategic collaboration in planning with the US Navy's TF38. This part fo the operation was not conducted in or against Manchuria, although the objective was to create a gigantic cauldron to trap the Japanese forces in Manchuria! To suggest that the operation is a simple "invasion" of Manchuria, if there ever was a simple one, is therefore a rather original opinion, and Wikipedia does not deal in opinions, but only in verified facts. Some may argue that inclusion of "operation" in the title as suggested in #2 alternative is extraneous, but the reason it was an operation is because it required operational coordination of the Red Army, Navy and Air forces, and those of the Allies, namely the US Navy and Marine forces and British and Commonwealth forces serving with them, thus making it arguably one of the most complex strategic operations of the war, and the only one of where all allied nations (including the French) were involved in the planning and execution. The title of Soviet invasion of Manchuria is therefore misleading and superficial.

Based on the above, it is fairly clear to me that the Soviet name of the operation as Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation is the most available from reliable sources, verifiable, and therefore unchallenged, neutral point of view of the event that does not use any original research.

Is it therefore true that "Written by many who know little" is the unofficial motto of Wikipedia? No, it is not. The official policy of Wikipedia is that editors need to do research before they create and edit articles. Inclusion of references and citing them is an express reminder to anyone who creates an article. It assumes these have been read and understood. If this does not occur, then the motto of Wikipedia can be changed to "Never in the field of human knowledge was so much adulterated for so many by so few."--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I support such proposition. In strategic operations, the one who has the initiative has the naming priveledge - look at operation Barbarossa for instance. Since the operation in question was an OFFENSIVE for the Soviet Union, we should use the Soviet name for it. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Please read the naming guidelines. What the attacker used is not in them, despite mrg's lobbying for it. As for mrg's block of text, tl;dr comes to mind. However I did read and nothing in it is overly convincing (to me). As for wikipedia not being about consensus, Wikipedia:Consensus. Narson (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
"tl;dr"? Please note that I quoted from the Wikipedia:Consensus above, so I have read it. Do you agree that consensus is only required where there is more then one alternative to the edited text?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoops; shouldn't do that. tl;dr stands for Too Long; Didn't Read. Buckshot06(prof) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I know Mrg. I just don't buy the argument that your version is the only version. It seems obvious from above people believe there is more than one option, so trying to claim you don't need consensus is unlikely to meet with much success. Narson (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I absolutely disagree. Consensus is most required when there is only one alternative to the edited text. (Unanimity is not, or we would never decide anything; our use of consensus is habitual, but poor English.) I see no part of WP:CONSENSUS which would suggest such a thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Does 2+2=4 need consensus? If there is a single source for some bit of information, such as a new discovery in science made the day before by a singe scientist, does it need consensus? Consensus is only required when there are multiple sources for same item of information.
Where were the sources on the basis of which the change was made to Soviet invasion of Manchuria? How did consensus arrive on selecting which sources are reliable and verifiable and which are not? Was there in fact a discussion? No, there was a vote. So, if enough editors in Wikipedia decide they don't like something, the Wikipedia policy on verifiability is thrown out the door, right? So, if there is consensus, there is no need for sources, right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(od) Mrg, just a note here. Compare the names for the Italian operations, which the Allies called for example, Operation Avalanche, is at Allied invasion of Italy. Operation Overlord is at Battle of Normandy. Apart from the complexity of the name argument, using the Soviet term priveleges the Soviet point of view, and thus introduces bias - NPOV. Otherwise we'd have the 6 June operations at Operation Overlord, but that would be NPOV against the German viewpoint... do you understand what I'm trying to express? Buckshot06(prof) 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No I do not. Calling a Soviet operation with its correct name is not a privileged point of view, but simply a fact of recorded history. Calling it an invasion, is a bias suggesting the Soviet Union was an aggressor, rather than an offensive military force dislodging an invader and occupier. Who gives you the right to rewrite history? I can not fathom why people stoop to using journalistic terms like battle or and invasions where actual names are known. You will not that I have not tried to change names of Soviet operations where a codename was used although all also have known operational names. Operation Overlord also has an operational name, as does Operation Avalanche, and it is not "invasion" of Italy. It just shows sloppy research and editing that Wikipedia, the reference work, uses same titles as contemporary newspapers[11]--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
But what you wish to do is change the entire practise of military operation naming across wikipedia - your issue is not just with this operation. You've tried to do this, with your naming conventions proposal, and been voted down. Doing as you suggest would force a reexamination of NPOV across the entire set of names expressed like this. Precedent suggests that the vast majority does not agree with you. Why do you continue against virtually every other reader, doing what I believe is described as Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man or Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Do you not see that a majority - WP:Consensus - in favour of what you want would be required, and that this is not there? Why do you continue when, bluntly, you can't win? Buckshot06(prof) 13:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the word you are looking for Buckshot is Quixotic. Narson (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this reply by Buckshot06 makes interesting points about his perception of what I am saying, namely
  • That I want to "change the entire practise of military operation naming across wikipedia", as opposed to each article on a case-by-case basis within some logical and consistent naming convention structure
  • That what something is named requires agreement of other Wikipedia editors (not readers)
  • That consensus has anything to do with naming conventions
  • That I am posing arguments because I want to "win"
None are true--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. Our naming conventions are guidelines; they derive what force they have from being consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense you say? But naming conventions are in fact policy, and I don't see consensus mentioned anywhere in it in the context you suggest

Naming conventions sets out Wikipedia's policy on how to create and name pages. The conventions are supplemented and explained by the guidelines linked to this policy. This policy should be interpreted using other policies and not in isolation. In particular editors should familiarise themselves with the three content policies Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Make that Utter Nonsense. Mrg is quoting the very language that says that WP:NAME is one policy; it does not and cannot incorporate all the others; in this case WP:CONSENSUS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PMAnderson, you need to consider the relationship of "consensus to other policies by examining their overall structure in Wikipedia. See below where it says on the policy list template

Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories
What Wikipedia is not
Ignore all rules
Neutral point of view
Verifiability
No original research
Biographies of living persons
Civility
No personal attacks
No legal threats
Consensus
Dispute resolution
Full list of policies
List of guidelines

So, "consensus" is not for editing, or anything to do with editing, or titling articles, or deciding which sources are better, or if one name is more common than another, etc. THAT is why I become incensed and uncivil, when people, in the name of "consensus" ride right over the policies that REALLY count in producing quality articles. The very fact that someone like you seemingly does not understand this makes the entire enterprise of Wikipedia of questionable value given so many people obviously don't understand the relationship and seek "consensus". However, the LEAST you and others could have asked yourselves is, why, if you are doing all this "consensus" voting over sources, are the editing policies not mentioned anywhere in the consensus page?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, in our sense, is for editing; that's why we bother to have a policy on it. It is our only judge of what is neutral, what sources are better, or if one name is more common than another; I will even agree, to adapt Winston Churchill, that it is the worst of judges - except for all the others. What makes Wikipedia of questionable value are two things:
  • Edits not submitted to consensus, because nobody notices them; this includes all lingering vandalism.
  • Edits performed without consensus to pursue some agenda, higher truth, or idiosyncratic view of the sources. (Edits on which several editors agree, without discussion, are the usual and best form of this consensus, of course.)
As far as I can see, every paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS discusses editing, beginning with the definition of consensus as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process. If Mrg3105 wishes to propose a change to that, WT:CONSENSUS is the place to do so; but I doubt he will get very far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Strategic offensive operation"

Looking at what other things Glantz calls "strategic offensive operation", it's pretty much any large-scale invasion. Furthermore, I have to note that "invasion" is not a matter of point of view. Either forces of one sovereign state entered the territory of another sovereign state, or they did not. "Strategic offensive operation" implies nothing about sovereign entities or territories involved. Nor can I agree that a misleading title is perfectly fine, just explain it in the article. —PētersV (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, since territory of Manchukuo, Chinese Republic, the Japanese protectorate of Kuryo and ostensibly Japanese sovereign territory were also invaded at the same time, why is this article called only invasion of Manchuria? --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
What it boils down to is specialized nomenclature versus common usage. —PētersV (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
No, what it boils down to is the title reflecting a historical event and being descriptive of the contents of the article! Given the article is within the project of Military History, one would expect articles to use some degree of military terminology. Of the four words used in Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, only one, "offensive" can be said to be specifically military in nature. However, the meanings behind an "offensive" and an "invasion" are quite different--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What's with all these "Offensive Operations"? Sounds like a euphemism for proactive surgery or something. From this search it seems that, whatever they are, they're only conducted by Russians. And what about the Japanese "Defensive Operations"? Should these Japanese actions be split into a separate article? — AjaxSmack 22:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
In all fairness, "strategic offensive operation" is used by Glantz for this and for other large scale offensives/invasions such as Hitler's invasion of the USSR. The discussion is whether such titling for WP articles provides the best description of the subjects at hand. As for "of Manchuria", the proposed title isn't the "Manchurian Manchukuoan Chinese Kuryo Japanese protectorate strategic offensive operation," either, so "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" appears to be no less accurate than what's proposed. —PētersV (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason the the Soviet operation is so named is because the centre of gravity of the strategic force was situated in the inner Manchuria, with the point of origin situated in the Soviet outer Manchuria. This is however too technical to include in the article here. There were however separate operational phases for the larger strategy, as I added to the article earlier, that addressed the operations in all these separate regions. Also originally in the pan, but never execute, was the Amphibious landing on Hokkaido. Again, "invasion" has a connotation with is altogether a state of aggression by one state against another, which does not apply here. Nor was it solely an "invasion" of Manchuria. The title is therefore lacking objectivity, and fails to capture the whole scope of the operation.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I was being a little silly. Seriously, Glantz is a specialist's work on the subject and Wikipedia is a general reference. "Offensive operation" appears to be a translation of наступательная операция and is only used titles of battles involving Russia. My point is that, if reflected in English usage, more generally understood terms that have broad application should be used. Ask yourself, is there something in particular that separates the events decribed in the offensive operation articles from other battles not involving Russians? I'm not making a judgement on that in this case and will leave the decision on such titles to others. — AjaxSmack 00:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I replied to AjaxSmack elsewhere already. You can ask the same question - is there something that separates Soviet operations from Allied operations? The answer is yes, the English usage is to use the codenames that few Soviet operations have, and which are used where they are existing. Where there is no codename, the proper name should be used according to Wikipedia naming convention, and more importantly WP:V and WP:NOR. Common Englsih usage does not apply to named historical events! After all, anyone can invent almost anything to call an even based on the point of view, which is also contrary to WP:NPOV. My point in using "offensive operation" is that one should differentiate them from "defensive operations" (these always accompany), or other types of operations such as strategic encirclements, sieges, strategic bombings, etc. However, this is completely aside from the fat that the form was used by the originators of the event! Its part of Soviet and now Russian history. Why is Wikipedia trying to rewrite it? Consider the issues of naming in the Mexican–American War and its name in the Spanish language Wiki [12].--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you said above and here but reach different conclusions. WP:V and WP:NOR apply but simply because the Russian name of an invasion is x does not mean the English name is the English translation of x. Your example of the Mexican–American War and its different name in Spanish, Intervención estadounidense en México, supports this. You say that "Common Englsih usage does not apply to named historical events!" but this is not policy at Wikipedia. Many historical events such as the Battle of the Bulge, the Holocaust, and the Nanking Massacre are known by common, even if anachronistic, names and not their official names given at the time. This is not POV but simply reflects common usage. — AjaxSmack 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
AjaxSmack, can you see that your statement is circular?
  • Common English usage does not apply to named historical events! because this is not policy at Wikipedia.
  • Examples: Many historical events such as the Battle of the Bulge, the Holocaust, and the Nanking Massacre are known by common, even if anachronistic, names
  • Reason they are so named: WP:NC(CN) - common name
And yet, in fact Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) does not mention events anywhere.
In fact the question posed in the convention is disingenuous - "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". If one has no idea about a subject, they may put anything into the search engine! Wikipedia can not cater for all possible "common" names! As a reference source it is concerned with the reference to the one name of any given subject with which it is associated based on some definitive record of fact.
Now examine the rationale behind the convention
  • We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. - fine, use redirects
  • We want to maximize the incidence that people who make a link guessing the article name, guess correctly; people guessing a different name may think there is no article yet, which may cause duplication. - while users may search by guessing, editors are supposed to use verifiable sources! If an editor knows the sources, he/she can add redirects to allow others to find the article by searching without changing the actual name of the subject.
  • Not in the rationale, but before it is a statement - Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage. *** However, common usage changes! This in itself may be said to be "recent scholarship", and yet "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship" - we have a contradiction in terms.
  • Using a full formal name requires people to know that name, and to type more. - well, actually no. Even using 50% of the words in the actual name, assuming a close enough guess of the 50-50 probability ratio, Google will still deliver a Wikipedia article first!
  • We respect our readers and name our articles as they do, just formulating their collective needs. - doh, the user's collective need is for an accurate reference source, not for someone to reaffirm what they already knew! How does one ascertain the "collective needs" of 350 million potential English language users anyway?!
Still, there is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and...Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) "guidelines apply to events and incidents, such as military conflicts...", so why is this not used? Because this convention actually has reasonable and logical guidelines. Not one person chose to mention this guideline in the entire renaming vote--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This is all starting to sound a bit wikilawyery. Whether or not common name is poorly worded, it is the accepted standard across wikipedia, if we went with the event naming conventions wouldn't we go for 'What occured: Invasion' and 'Where: Manchuria' resulting in 'Invasion of Manchuria', though I accept this is overly simplistic, I do not see the support in the naming conventions for using convoluted translations from russian. In soviet russia, manchuria invades you? Narson (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
What's wikilayering about suggesting that the convention which explicitly applies to military conflicts is applied to a military conflict? In any case, the order of naming is Where, followed by What, so that would be Manchurian invasion by Soviet Union? So why not a Manchurian offensive by Soviet Union given it was not an invasion as such compared to other invasions? I am simply pointing out that naming conventions should be applied appropriately, which is why they exist--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see mrg is quoting guidelines which don't support him. WP:NC (events) has as its first rule: If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view. That covers this case.

I propose to ignore him (except to oppose) hereafter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm quoting guidelines, because no one else does. Ah, well, but you didn't suggest renaming "Operation August Storm" into "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" because the later was more common. Neither do you mention that the current "more common" name was arrived at by a Wikipedia vote, and not a survey of sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
See the policy page on naming pages, first section after the lead: Wikipedia:Naming Conventions#Use the most easily recognized name --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
...and "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." The last name change was not based on verifiable English sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If the name of this article should be anything different, it should be "Invasion of Manchuria (1945)"

My reasoning for that comes from WP:Naming conventions (events). There it says:

"The following guidelines apply to events and incidents, such as military conflicts, terrorist attacks, transportation accidents, natural disasters, and the like."

Note the mention of military, so that convention clearly applies here. It goes on to say:

"If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name."

I showed in my other comment on this page that "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" gets 1,120 hits, but this link shows that "Invasion of Manchuria" gets 3,190 hits (note I had to make sure to exclude instances of the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria), which is far more than the current title. Now Google tests aren't the greatest thing, but I reckon that's solid.

So we should use that name. Note also that "Invasion of Manchuria" follows the other points in that convention in case there is no common name:

"In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors: Where the incident happened" (Manchuria) and "What happened" (Invasion).

Now of course, there is one problem with this, namely that Invasion of Manchuria already exists (it's the Japanese 1931 one). But that is where the qualifier (1945) comes in, because it says on the convention:

"If these descriptors are not sufficient to identify the event unambiguously, a third descriptor should be added: When the incident happened."

It does go onto say not to use the year if other time differentiators will work, but since it happened over a few days, only the year 1945 will do (unless you use the qualifier "August" but that seems odd in my opinion, though I wouldn't be adverse to that). Therefore, the best title would seem to be Invasion of Manchuria (1945) (it also keeps a nice consistency with the Japanese one i.e. both have the same structure but only one has the qualifier as is meant to be the case). I'm willing to accept though that there might not be consensus for that, so if there isn't I will gladly support the status quo title, as "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" isn't common enough. Deamon138 (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is only one problem with this line of reasoning. The offensive wasn't named for invading (inner) Manchuria, but for the (outer) Soviet Manchuria where it was staged. As part of the offensive, China, the puppet states of Inner Manchuria and Korea, and Japanese islands were also "invaded", although none except the Japanese troops were actually attacked because the Manchurian forces simply surrendered to the Soviet troops wherever encountered--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
What you have said may well be factually correct, but per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Naming conventions (events), no naming combination with the word "offensive" in it is more common than a combination with "invasion". Deamon138 (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
By your own admission, "Invasion of Manchura" ambigious - it gets more google hits only because Manchuria has been invaded multiple times. Nobody actually calls it "Invasion of Manchuria (1945)". That's why the current title is best. Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
"it gets more google hits only because Manchuria has been invaded multiple times." If you check out the Google search I did, you will see that I explicitly made sure that the Japanese invasion is excluded from the results, and the year "1945" was included, so the Google search accurately reflects the commonness of "Invasion of Manchuria" for the 1945 invasion. Don't forget that the current title is "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" so it already contains the most common name for it.
Yes Raul, Manchuria has been invaded more than once, so "Invasion of Manchuria" is ambiguous, but that is the point of disambiguation!
"Nobody actually calls it "Invasion of Manchuria (1945)"" Of course not. The 1945 is a qualifier. It is not part of its most common name. No one calls the different types of Mercury literally "Mercury (element)", "Mercury (planet)", "Mercury (automobile)", "Mercury (plant)", or "Mercury (mythology)". When I'm talking about the liquid in my thermometer, I just call it "Mercury". So why are those Mercury articles at those locations? Because they are following Wikipedia naming conventions i.e. that you provide a qualifier when an article title is ambiguous. Since "Invasion of Manchuria" is ambiguous, then according to WP:Naming conventions (events), the qualifier we use is the time when it occurred. Hence Invasion of Manchuria (1945). Deamon138 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)"

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Manchuria → Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) — Ambiguous title: there had been another Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1929 — Yaan (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support, per above (just in case) Yaan (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PētersV. Such a move with the inevitable creation of a disambiguation page will further move this article away from the actual historic events. The current title focus too much on only 1 part of the total invasion, which involved the invasion of the Kuril and Sakhalin Islands, Korean peninsula and Hokkaidō.
The Manchurian events of 1945 are not Invasion of Manchuria Redux as the disambiguation page would suggest.
Soviet troops also invaded Inner Mongolia, created North Korea and Pliyev's Mechanized Group reached Beijing[1]. I prefer moving this article to the russian equivalent which is Советско-японская война, Soviet-Japanese War. Simple, direct and precise. EconomistBR 03:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Neither is this solution unambiguous. This would be confused with the Soviet-Japanese War of 1939 (Japanese invasion) which concluded with the 1941 Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. —PētersV (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
See Soviet–Japanese Border Wars. Since 1938 there were cross border skirmishes, whereas in 1945 we had a formal declaration of war followed by a full scale invasion and conquest of territory. Comparing the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, the climax of cross border war, where the USSR deployed only 57,000 men, to the Soviet-Japanese War (in Russian Wiki) where 1,500,000 men were mobilized is inaccurate IMO.
Edward Drea of the CSI called the events of 1939 as Japanese-Soviet Tactical Combat and wrote:
While this "Strange War" may be all but forgotten in the West, the Soviets continue to regard it as a brilliant example of the proper manner in which to fight a limited border war.[13] EconomistBR 16:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support EconomistBR's suggestion of "Soviet-Japanese war," because 1) This was the only "real" war between the two states - it was a declared full-scale invasion with the ultimate goal of assaulting the Home Islands and forcing Japan to capitulate. 2) The 1939 conflict is more widely known is the Battle of Khalkin Gol, anyway, and was a comparatively small-scale border clash; 3) As was already pointed out, the invasion was not only "of Manchuria." I also have nothing against "Operation August Storm," for purely aesthetic reasons. However, this is simply my own preference with rationale attached. The name should really be determined by occurrence in Western sources. --Illythr (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
As for the Sino-Soviet conflict (1929), I think the scope of Soviet military action was rather limited (to restoring joint administration) to be classified as a real invasion. --Illythr (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually think "invasion" is a much more common name for this event than "Sino-Soviet Conflict". Yaan (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Discussion

This is about what I had in mind. Yaan (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Guihua

What is the source for the Soviet or Mongolian troops taking Guihua? My impression is that their advance took place much further east, towards Dolon Nor. Yaan (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Closure of the RM debate

I believe that the closure of the RM debate was very premature, in less than 1 week a debate that was still ongoing was closed and the RM accepted.

Bundling this conflict with the 1929 skirmish is a inaccuracy, I wished we would discuss this more thoroughly.

The Soviet-Japanese War is not just the pincer movement, it had profound consequences for the history of the 20th century. As mentioned, it created North Korea and David Glantz writes:

After the Soviets had conquered Manchuria they turned captured Japanese equipment over to the Communist Chinese and provided the Communists a base from which to operate against the Nationalist government.[14] EconomistBR 04:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria/Archive_2&oldid=1137196256"