Jump to content

Talk:Winter War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CarlGGHamilton (talk | contribs) at 23:48, 17 February 2017 (→infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleWinter War has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 9, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
October 18, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
October 23, 2009Good article nomineeListed
October 31, 2009WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
December 23, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 2, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Winter details

I changed the conversion of celcius to fahrenheit. -104 degrees fahrenheit is in fact -75 degrees C, whereas -40C is, oddly enough, -40F. Small point in case the moderators get stressed at my editing.

Some one who knows the script, please help clean this up

Seems like the graphic table is messy quite a bit when I get in today. Any writer who knows what to do, please help. (May 17, 2007)

Result

I think we need add to result that Finland lost 11% of its territory (including Vyborg (the second largest city)). What do you think about it?--188.170.193.109 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the war

I know this was discussed previously, but I feel that either the phrase "Soviet pyrrhic victory" or "Indecisive" should be added to results, as the average viewer won't know the results/"winner" of the war, or possibly add "Finnish tactical victory, Soviet strategic victory" to reflect that while Finland preserved their sovereignty and most of their territory, the Moscow treaty was still preferable to the Soviets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.133.36 (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

infobox

The infobox says that SU wished to annex Finland but there isn't a single reference to that on the article, not even one of how SU threatened Finland's independence. But ironically there's one about how they recognized it right away when it was declared. P.S. I saw that in the last discussing this was raised but not addressed, but somehow it appeared on the final result, maybe is it something to think about it? Bertdrunk (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a whole list of sources stating towards that end in the article. In the second paragraph for example. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that the reader should search twenty books, half of them in foreign language, to find something that should be in the article? Bertdrunk (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed that there would have been no references with regards to the SU wishing to annex Finland (or how SU threatened Finland's independence). Instead contrary to your statement there were quite a few of them already in the article. I really have no idea where you are picking up your comments with regards to my statement. I merely pointed out that you were in error when you claimed that it would not have had references to that in the article. Besides it doesn't require a person to read twenty or so books, just reaching the end of the second paragraph in the article is enough. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet Annexation plans doesn't have a reference, while it is mentioned in the second paragraph that some have concluded that they had this plan, it doesn't say that there is actually evidence for it, just "some argue". It also says other historians claim they didn't. So the info box takes a controversial subject, and concludes one side is right, without any debate, then links to another wiki page that isn't actually about soviet annexation plans, in fact the word annex is not mentioned once in the article that is linked. This is also against the guide lines for the results of info boxes. Sadly every time I tried to change it to follow the guide lines it was just changed back. CarlGGHamilton (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In article itself there are several references and had you truly read the linked wikipage you would have noticed that there are four references marked for the statement Headed by Finnish politician Otto Ville Kuusinen, the Finnish Democratic Republic was Joseph Stalin's planned means to conquer Finland. In the very first paragraph of that article. And the Soviet plans for the taking control of Finland are discussed throughout that linked article - which means it is in line with the statement in the infobox that refers to that article. So I really can not see what you are complaining about. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually not discussed at all, it's claimed that because they supported some Finnish communists this means they wanted to annex the whole thing. That article has no debate about this what so ever, and that is despite the fact not every historian agrees that it is so. A result section according to the guide lines should be very clear to the victor, it should state who won, and as little as possible else. Making a claim in the result box, linking to an article that doesn't discuss this claim is so much against the guide lines of what the result box is intended for. CarlGGHamilton (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing since the statement is rather explicit. "...the Finnish Democratic Republic was Joseph Stalin's planned means to conquer Finland." You may not like that but that is what it is. Besides the infobox is a discussion that has been had repeatedly on this article. That you dislike the current form is not a valid argument in such a discussion. So do read the archives of this talk page and then think if you actually have something to contribute to the discussions that have already been had on this matter. Then if you still think that your reasoning is valid post your argument with actually valid reasoning - something you haven't posted so far - to support it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also you are severely misrepresenting what the Soviets did. They didn't just "support some Finnish communists" like you stated. It is quite clear in the articles that the Soviet first created a puppet government, then denied the existence (or legality) of the Finnish government, and finally promised to support their self-made puppet government to make its proclamations 'from Helsinki' - as is stated in the puppet government's own pamphlets ([1]) - something which couldn't be done without conquering Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Finnish, but I can tell you what I am arguing for: The guide lines for the result section info box says, the result section should be clear and not polluted. Right now it's very polluted, and very biased too, it has personal opinions in it, and references to other articles as evidence instead of a source. This shouldn't even be in the result at all, Finland surrendered in the war war, which means the Soviet won. This is what it should say. The current result of the info box breaks the wiki guidelines.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Winter_War&oldid=766056973"