Talk:Battle of Kursk/Archive 7

Article protected
As the edit warring has continued, I've just fully protected the article for a week to allow time for dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up, but above I share my feedback/suggestion for moving forward, having been asked by one of the involved-editors to "drop in [my] thoughts on the new steps". So that's what I've done. Hope it helps.  Azx2  21:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * [Binksternet's comment (Binksternet(talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)), moved into relevant sub-section above]... by  Azx2  04:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I just wanted to advise that I moved your comment "This series of edits..." up into the proposal section where we're currently discussing a solution. I did this to ensure that your voice would appear/be heard as part of the relevant discussion and b/c I was concerned that we would split the discussion if detailed comments (regardless of the author's position re. blitzkrieg) appeared in both sections. I'm under the impression that it's OK for me to have moved the comments, but just want to be clear that my intentions are strictly honourable.  Azx<b style="color:#000">2</b>  04:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 August 2013
Belgorod was recaptured by the Germans on 18 March, not 18 February as stated. Page is currently locked so I can't correct the typo.

Davidcpearce (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Redrose64, the person above is correct. EyeTruth (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 August 2013
In the second paragraph, change from Panzer Tank to Panzer Tank. It looks the exact same, but the link currently goes to "Panzer Tank," which redirects back to "Panzer."

Brant.merrell (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:NOTBROKEN -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion of "blitzkrieg"
The following was posted on my talk page, and I'm moving it here to keep the discussion in one place. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please can you moderate the current process for resolving the blitzkrieg dispute? I do not wish to get you involved in this but if it is possible for you to moderate this process with your non-involved administrator hat on, please kindly do so. I wouldn't have called you back if not because I'm seeing signs that show nothing has changed in Gunbirddriver's mindset. He again completely removed blitzkrieg from main content and instead moved it citation and notes section. You were right earlier, I should have taken the initiative to write the opposing view (although it would have been subpar since I have no sources for the opposing view). Well, I restored the content but with a major change: "The operation, according to some historians[j], envisioned a blitzkrieg...".

In the note [j], I first pointed out that some commentators/historians may not agree with this. That assertion still lack citations, except for Guderian's works (which would still require original synthesis in order to incorporate it as a source), and has been a major barrier to resolving this dispute for months. After that, I listed 9 historians (with supporting citations) that characterize it as an intended blitzkrieg. Essentially, the pattern I used is: Introduce, Oppose, Support. But Nick, if it is possible, can you please moderate this process. Please. EyeTruth (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I've mostly stayed out of this lately, I would like to point out to Nick, in case he hasn't gone back through the original talk page posts about this issue, that many, if not most, historians and participants do not characterize the plan in any way so providing cites is rather difficult, which is why my preferred solution is to drop all use of the term and let readers make up their own mind. I also don't place any weight on any use of the term blitzkrieg without a definition since it's a word often used loosely, which appears to be just about everybody except Clark, but EyeTruth seems to have fixated on his use of the term as all the support needed for his position. That said, I'd be relatively content for a note explaining the differences of opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to Clark, Glantz and Barbier have also used the term with a definition (I bet there are a lot others). And as I've said before, I agree that providing cites for the opposition will be difficult. That is why I suggest that the wording for the differing view be revised. In fact you worded it perfectly: "participants do not characterize the plan in any way." BTW, how will excluding any mention of the term give wiki-readers more freedom to make up their mind as they see fit? A note explaining the differences of opinion, instead, is what will give readers more freedom to make up their mind. EyeTruth (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that Blitzkrieg term is hugely overused and appears to often be just shorthand for any German offensive. Glantz and House The Battle Of Kursk {Modern war studies) 1999 pg xiii, 472 states "For the German side, it spelled the death of the "blitzkrieg" (sic) and the beginning of defensive operations". I find the quote marks quite eloquent. I would suggest the note approach as mentioned above. Hitlers own operational outline appears to be harking back to a classic blitz approach, but I have not looked at it for ages. I do not know if any wording there would have any bearing, and in any case the northern and southern attacks appear to have been different in their offensive tactics. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if only someone could help me tell Gunbirddriver that other editors think that the "note approach" is a more viable solution than completely removing the term as he has done again, just very recently, with this edit. In the edit, he even deleted sources, and I don't know why or to what end. EyeTruth (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Irondome, in case you are still interested in Hitler's own operational outline (Operational Order No. 6), I uploaded a pic of it HERE. It's a pic of Glantz & House's Battle of Kurs (1999) that I took a while ago. It's from somewhere in the first 30 pages. I will check and confirm the page later. EyeTruth (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that EyeTruth. I have found the full text. It s reproduced in Citadel-The battle of Kursk. Robin Cross. BCA publications 1993 pg 92-95. I will type it out in full in a seperate section. At the moment im too knackered. From a quick re-read (I have not read it for over a decade I think) Hitler in no way envisages a classic blitzkrieg. Instead, he constantly and explicitly uses the Kessel as imagery. He seems to be re-imagining a 41 Smolensk-type 360 degree envelopment and destruction. The impression of an irresistible armoured and artillery phalanx comes to mind, reading the original operational draft. In it H implicately recognises the reality of new found military weakness at several points. I would argue this is the best contemporary source for the "tone" of the offensive. Problem is it is a primary sourrce. It does not appear to be a "blitzkrieg" operation. It even mentions a combination of offensive and defensive measures on the overall tactical front. This is not the language of 41 or even 42. It is hesitant, behind the bombastic phrasing. It does not in any way describe an operation that is designed to thrust deeply and fatally into the Soviet deep rear area, causing a strategic terminal disruption. It frequently speaks of stabilisation, and new defensive lines that will be created after the bulge is excised. It does not at any point speak of a decisive battle of stategic annilation. It is an unprecedented thing in German strategy then at that point in the war, and a paradoxical concept. A defensive offensive. Any usage of Biltzkrieg in regard to Kursk must therefore be seen as cliche, or lazy usage of a complex and still disputed terminology. Any secondary sources out there analysing Op order 6 may clear this up finally. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Karl Frieser and Lloyd Clark both think Kesselschlacht and encirclement are typical features of blitzkrieg. The precise wording of blitzkrieg's definition varies from historian to historian, but many of the features attributed often overlap (at least they do when comparing Frieser's, Clark's, Glantz's and Barbier's definitions). Personally, I've adopted Frieser's definition since he is one historian that has taken the effort to dig into blitzkrieg and reach its bottom with his 1995 work that was translated to English in 2005 under the title The Blitzkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the West. Frieser thought any association of blitzkrieg with anything "strategic" as a big fallacy (Overy completely agreed in his 1995 work, War and economy in the Third Reich). He also didn't see blitzkrieg as a "disputed terminology", but instead saw it as a concept that has become heavily mythologized. He even asserts (and shows) that the blitzkrieg concept (which he defined in the opening of the book) was informally adopted by the Wehrmacht after the fall of France in 1940 and that the usage of the term in German military circles picked after fall of France, and continued till the failure of Barbarossa in 1941. Even Hitler used the term in some of his correspondence with Italy before late-1941. Clark did not analyse the op order in depth but he summarized it, and he did define blitzkrieg which would suggest he wasn't using it casually. Same with Barbier. And Clark's definition tightly resonates with Frieser's. EyeTruth (talk) 05:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Shame, I had an edit conflict and lost about 300 words, so my line of argument has been badly disrupted. I think was about to agree that the classic blitz period ended in June 41. But I dispute the uniqueness of Blitzkrieg, apart from its hugely powerful pscological impact on unprepared opponents. Blitzkrieg could be defined purely by the campaign in the West in 40. There lies its unique success. The Greek campaign and Yugoslavia in spring 41 can be seen as blitzkriegs last success. Barbarossa never achieved that moral and mental paralysis, and by that time it could be argued that blitzkrieg was fully consciously used as the major strategic method against the Soviet Union by German planners. I would love to see Freisers work. Is it on Google books? It could be said that any well coordinated combined arms offensive in WW2 was blitzkrieg, no matter the army carrying it out. The Soviet Union in the early to mid 30s had a complete doctrine of deep strategic operation which was fully codified in the manuals, something which the German concept never was. Much of your above arguments appear to be discussed in our own Blitzkrieg article. It is well worth revisiting by all interested watchers here on this discussion. I would avoid the term blitzkrieg here seriously, and use the note method as discussed. Good exchange. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that sucks. I think Frieser's book is on Google books. Blitzkrieg is not unique per say. It is often used in association with Germany and was associated with Germany, but nothing binds it to Germany like deep battle to USSR. Frieser pointed out the term blitzkrieg can be considered extensively a synonym for modern operational maneuver warfare. (Although according to Gunbirddriver, Guderian's understanding of mobile warfare differs significantly from Frieser's definition of blitzkrieg). The subject of blitzkrieg shares many similarities with the holocaust. One of these similarities is that because of the lack of official usage of both terms, it is not uncommon to find commentators applying them to events not exclusive to Jews (for holocaust) or Germany (for blitzkrieg). Psychological impact is often attributed as a result and not an objective in the definitions of blitzkrieg I've come across. Anyways the interesting thing is that the Citadel plan fits Frieser's definition in many ways. I already went through it with Sturmvogel (see above). With the exception of "far-reaching thrust", we couldn't find any other aspect of the definition that doesn't fit the Citadel plan. Sturmvogel argued that the Citadel plan did not envision a far-reaching thrust and therefore falls short of Frieser's definition. But Frieser never specified or even implied the range of distance that would count as a "far-reaching thrust". So I asked Sturmvogel what would be considered a far-reaching thrust and he cited Barbarossa, Blue and earlier campaigns. However, I pointed out that the intended depth of the thrust for Citadel is just about as much as that seen in the Balkan Campaigns, and no one argues whether the Balkan Campaigns fit any definition of the blitzkrieg out there. He never replied to that (I think maybe he just didn't see it). Frieser's, Glantz's, Barbier's and Clark's definitions of blitzkrieg all fit with the plan for Citadel. (Keep in mind that I also understand that blitzkrieg is largely misunderstood, is largely misused, is not official, and is not strictly unique). EyeTruth (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly in our own Bitzkrieg article, is this (and no I am not falling into the trap of using WP as a source) attributed to Glantz and House, 1995, pg 167 which has been paraphrased as "Of course the Kursk operation did not comprise a true "blitzkrieg" operation..as there was no element of suprise, no breakthrough to outflank or strike at rear areas, and no psycological pressure being exerted upon the minds of the Soviet high command". The original Glantz & House wording there may be instructive if anyone has a copy to hand. There is some interesting sections in the "Blitzkrieg" article, which appear to be paraphrasing a debate as to whether it even existed as a unique or conscious tactic. Maybe the sources cited there would repay revisting, although I doubt you are unfamiliar with any of them. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That was Gunbirddriver's original research inserted with this edit. He has done this type of stuff in the Kursk article (and not for contents regarding blitzkrieg) so many times, it should have driven me nuts. Debate over original research is one of things that soured our relations. I couldn't help but raise my tone sometimes. It also made me realize that he doesn't understand the three core content policies of Wikipedia, else this simple dispute wouldn't have become one big drama. EyeTruth (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The materials supporting the description have been presented on this talk page on several occasions. They can all be drudged up again for you if you need to see it all again, though when you have seen it before your reaction was to be dismissive.  I do not quite understand your need to phrase it as Original Research, when you have seen the material that supports the description.  I would characterize such comments as character assassination, and done in a discussion that I was not a party to which did not allow me to respond.  Such behavior does not lend itself to mending fences, nor to constructively going forth to resolve conflict.  There is little to anything that I have said here on the talk page that I am ashamed for, nor any edit that I have made that was done in bad faith, or that did not reflect a truthful reflection of events, and all of it is supportable. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But those additional statements are not supported by the cited source; whether anyone thinks they are correct or not is inconsequential. That is the point, Gunbirddriver. Original Research is not about whether it is correct or false, it is about not citing the appropraite source. Anyways, it is not like saying it again for the hundredth time will make a difference. EyeTruth (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it will not make any difference because you are talking nonsense. How many different authors have I been able to quote for you? Whole passages typed out of books, and you still act as though what I am saying is made up right off the top of my head.  I don't like wasting my time this way.  What is it about the term Original Research you not understand?  Here is the wiki definition for you:
 * The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1]


 * No reliable, published sources exist.


 * This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.


 * You must be able to cite reliable material. It doesn't say you have to cite it the moment you write something down, but you must base what you are writing on a reliable source which you could cite as the source of the idea.  That means they do not want you putting in your own ideas, but are relying on an established authority as the basis for what you are including in the encyclopedia.  Do you think Heinz Guderian would qualify as a reliable source when talking about the use of armour by the German army from 1939 to 1943?  I would think so.  Your efforts to attack me on the basis that I am making things up is baseless.  The admonition that wikipedia makes is that you do not insert your own material into the encylcopedia, but base your statement on material that is reliable and available for all to see.  That is what I have done.  If I was making things up then I would not have been able to provide supporting citations, but I have and do and will.  What you are doing is claiming that if a citation is not provided at the time of writing then the edit represents original research, and that is not the intention of the rule.


 * A more serious charge is plagiarism, and it is clear that you have plagiarized sources in the past, and are likely to do so again. That is why so many of your original entries sounded like they came right out of somebody’s book, because they had, word for word.  Your reaction to when these edits were rephrased or reduced was to lash out and claim that “Original Research” was being done.  That was not the case.  Not good. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Gunbirddriver, if you add new content without citing the sources then you are working contrary to WP:V policy. WP:NOR and WP:V go hand in hand. Even worse is when you insert these new cotent into a passage that already has a citation. Every time I point it out, you argue it to death. You actually believe that provided the added content is correct, all is perfectly fine. Also, I really want you to show one instance of this so-called plagiarism. Anyways, I believe you meant copyright voilation. Well, the few times you pointed those out, I promptly reworded them to reduce resemblance to the original. EyeTruth (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the wiki description you are speaking of:
 * Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
 * It must be verifiable, not you must verify and provide appropriate citations with each and every edit you make. You are mistaking the ideas behind the guidelines.  Now look at the admonition to Be Bold
 * Be bold (WP:BOLD) can be explained in three words: "Just do it" The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia.
 * Okay? Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So "be bold" means you can throw WP:V policy into the bin. Cool Story. EyeTruth (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I'm happy to help with this, but the above discussion really belongs on the article's talk page to maximise its visibility to interested editors. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well GBD should not be taking out a whole small paragraph from a related WP article, and not even bothering to rework wording. That is naughty. Nick, can you transfer this thread to the Kursk talk? Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Irondome, I think you have done some fine work, but if you take EyeTruth at his word then you are in for a few surprises. He is a very chatty editor.  The wording between the two sections is similar because, as EyeTruth pointed out, they were written by the same person – that is me.  They were written at different times, and without my looking from one to the other.  Nothing was copied and pasted.  They simply represent the same ideas, and are worded in a similar manner.  The ideas are based on extensive reading on the topic, and all can be supported.  There is nothing naughty or even surprising about it.Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gunbirddriver, I will have to say that you just told a blatant lie just now; well, I'm not surprised. The previous version of that paragraph WAS NOT written by you. Anyways, that aside, I didn't say the content you added is incorrect. Did I ever bug you over it? No. I actually think there is some truth in the info you added. But if you will add a new content, then cite it. If you don't have a citation for it, then add the new content as a new sentence. Eitherways, page 167 of Glantz's 1995 work doesn't say what you added, and that is the source cited for all that information. It has been like that for over 5 months. EyeTruth (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are going to have to stop calling me a liar. It is impolite, and does no good for your argument.  Not every word in the paragraph indicated was written by me, but the words Irondome was referring to, pointing out that Kursk differed from a blitzkrieg attack in a number of key ways, was certainly mine.  No one else wrote that, and that is what you were commenting on above: "That was Gunbirddriver's original research inserted with this edit." And I was not citing Glantz's book from 1995.  There was a period after my sentence and the next.  The citation at the end of the paragraph supported the last sentence.  Why would you suppose that everything in that paragraph is cited by Glant's book.  If you find a section that you believe needs additional citing, the polite thing to do would be to add a  tag.  And it would help if you were not always striving so hard. Anyway, this kind of specious contradiction makes for very poor argument.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But you lied. You said: "The wording between the two sections is similar because, as EyeTruth pointed out, they were written by the same person – that is me." That is not true. The "two sections" or versions were not written by you, only the later was. Also, you actually deleted Glantz's claim and added yours (or which ever yet unnamed sources you were working with). BTW, borrowing info from other sources without giving them their due credit is called plagiarism. EyeTruth (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Another edit conflict. I was being rather eloquent, but ive lost another 400 words. I hate that. Suffice to say, I appreciate your great work too, both here and in other article space that I have seen you in action. Please excuse a 3am word grab. Its mild and I would never impugne your quite obvious GF. I confidently believe thats the same for all eds contributing here. I am happy to retract that statement, but dont take it seriously. Reading the discussion in its entirety left me pretty drained, so Im blaming that :). As for BK, I believe it should not be used except in the most pressing editorial circumstances. Its lazy, and basically meaningless. It has utility in the 39 and 40 campaigns, and SE Europe in spring 41. But I would not use it much even for Barbarossa. Can you have a failed blitzkrieg?? Cheers! Irondome (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you understood blitzkrieg in the right way, you wouldn't have ever said Barbarossa doesn't belong. I can assure you that almost every big shot in the field will tell you that 1941 fits the same old pattern of maneuvre. Even those who use the term very conservatively, have classed 1941 with the term; people like Healy and Overy. (Healy classed it as such in his 2010 book on Zitadelle). EyeTruth (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume this is EyeTruth again? No, you are wrong again, and it would appear you do not understand where the train left the tracks, nor why there was such intense disagreement between the "tank men" and Adolf Hitler over the proper conduct of affairs.  The question comes down to the tactic of envelopment and attempting battles of annihiltion.  This is not a tactical plan that the panzer developers viewed as the appropriate use of armour.Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What the "tank men" think don't matter. These brilliant "tank men" considered deep penetration and speed more important than using tanks to complete encirclements. But this is not how things played out, thanks to Hitler and a few others. In France 1940, incidentally, the tanks were used to complete an encirclement. The Balkans campaigns weren't too different. Barbarossa was the classic blitzkrieg. It featured one battle of encirclement after another. Even your highly-esteemed Healy agrees on that (see page 135–136 of his 2010 book, Zitadelle). What actually happened, and not what these brilliant "tank men" thought, is what matters, and that is what Frieser was referring to when he defined Blitzkrieg. But then, to you Frieser is mediocre. EyeTruth (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "doesn't matter", and what the tank men think most certainly does matter. It is of central importance.  It was Guderian and the other tank men that devised the methods of armoured warfare that shocked the world with the rapid defeat of Poland and later France.  Hitler's role in the tactics that came to be known as "blitzkrieg" was to permit partial implementation of their plans, but Hitler had a limited understanding of what the tank men were trying to do, and how they intended to go about doing it.  Hitler himself said the term was "silly", so there you go for your effort to separate blitzkrieg from the men that developed and attaching it to someone who ultimately rejected it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well said, Irondome. I would agree.  I think (and this now is my own personal opinion just viewing the landscape) is that the term is used in descriptions of this battle as a foil to highlight the failure of the German army to meet its objectives.  Well, we can see that without using the term blitzkrieg. None of the Germans used it, so I would imagine we can get along without it as well.  The desciption laid out is fine in its own right:
 * The operation envisioned a double envelopment with pincers originating from the bases of the salient and directed at Kursk which would surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient.
 * Beautiful. That was it, exactly.  What more needs to be said?
 * The place where a discussion of describing the operation as a blitzkrieg would seem appropriate to me would be in the Analysis section at the end of the article. We have the authors noted above using the term to highlight the failure, we have Konev saying Kursk was the death of blitzkrieg.  Was it really?  It might prove interesting and helpful in fleshing out the idea.  Of course, I am envisioning this section being taken off to its own sub-article, so that the size issues of this article would not be further over-extended. Thanks for your kind reply. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a dawning suspicioin that Bk originated more in the long corridors of the Propanganda minisrty than the Bendlerstrasse. I am going to dredge through Goebbles' early war speeches and radio stuff. The most potent weapons arguably in the springtime for Hitler days was the German radio and insidious rumour-planting in neutral capitals and the media. Dark talk of German death rays and "new methods of warfare" in the phoney war period. A good source for this is Alistair Horne. To Lose a Battle. France 1940. Irondome (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "blitzkrieg" actually originated in German military circles, precisely in German military publications from the interwar period (unless Frieser is wrong). It became a propanganda tool after 1940. It even became a common term in the Wehrmacht. And later on, it erroneously gained its status as a military and economic strategy (according to Overy). But after the shortcomings in 1941, the term dissappeared from usage in Germany and Wehrmacht. Frieser talked about all these in sufficient detial. Therefore, it's pointless to expect to see its usage in German military circles in 1943. EyeTruth (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Freiser is wrong.Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. He's also a nutcase . EyeTruth (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Gunbirddriver, there are two issues I want to raise regarding your last edit for blitzkrieg. One: you deleted several sources and historians that support inclusion and never tried to rectify it, even after making several other editsEyeTruth (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A listing of some eight authors is repetitive and boring. Such writing is difficult to read through. Just listing the three most prominant should suffice, but I have added them back in, the whole list, out of consideration to you.Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are the person that decides who the prominent authors are? I'm tired of your methods. EyeTruth (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Two: the excerpt below is not true and citing entire books seems a bit odd. Actually citing entire books is fine.
 * " In addition, a great number of military historians do not view the battle as a blitzkrieg, including, but not limited, to Healy, Nipe, Newton, Brand and Kasdorf. "

We already discussed this and you even accepted that these guys were indifferent to such characterization (I could pull your exact wording if that is needed). Even Sturmvogel agreed to that.EyeTruth (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not list all the authors who have written on Kursk and did not believe it to be representative of a blitzkrieg. I listed four for the sake of brevity. In each case, the author is very accomplished in his field, is well aware of the term blitzkrieg, and chose not to use that term to describe the planning or execution of the battle.  This is evidence that is significant, whether you want to acknowledge that or not. I am not aware that myself or Sturmvogel 66 are accepting of most anything that you have advanced.  The main point is that I am opposed to what you want to do to the article on the basis that it is a bad choice content wise.  Sturmvogel 66 has been quite clear in his agreement on that point.  Parsing and attempting to feign agreement with you where it does not exist is poor argument. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not your place to attach an interpretation to this silence. Doing that without a direct support from a source will equate to original synthesis. Describe the issue as it is and let readers make up their own mind. EyeTruth (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And EyeTruth, please make up your mind on whether or not citing entire books is appropriate in your opinion before admonishing me not to cite entire books. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Calm down. EyeTruth (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Calm down yourself. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"These historians make no mention of blitzkrieg in their characterization of the operation". That is exactly what it is. Trying to speak for them beyond that incorporates speculation on your part. BTW, some citations for Theodor Busse, Erhard Raus, Friedrich Fangohr and Peter von der Groeben would be nice.EyeTruth (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, their silence speaks volumes. You are hoping to continue to prevail with the argument that since no sources can be produced describing the planning and battle as what it was not, then these authors have no opinion on the subject.  That does not follow.  We do have to make a number of assumptions, of course, but making assumptions is a task everyone of us undertakes every day (I assume the bus driver knows where he is taking me. I assume the man sitting next to me has no desire to take my shirt.) Okay then, Assume: They were attempting to describe the events accurately and concisely.  Assume: they were familiar with the term and were aware they could use it as a short-hand description that held meaning to the reader. Assume: they purposefully left the term out of their work because they believed they would write a better (more accurate and informative) history of the battle by leaving the term out. These assumptions are clearly understood by people like Sturmvogel 66.  To make the opposite assumptions would be idiotic. (Assume they did not intend to describe the events accurately and concisely.  Assume they were not familiar with the term.  Assume they accidentally left the term out.  Assume they believed that leaving the term in or out would make no difference to their work.) As you can see, the assumptions you are required to make to hold your view would mean these military historians and battle commanders are crack-pots, and I do not believe that is the case. Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And you are the person who will decide what "volumes" their silence speak? We should present the silence as it is and let readers make up their own mind. EyeTruth (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anybody can. It's just you that refuses to see the obvious.  I am fine to let their silence speak for themselves, and that is why I prefer to describe the plan rather than label it.  It is you that are attempting to insert a term that you know is poorly understood and likely to cause confusion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done what I believe is a balanced solution. The passsage reads: "The operation, according to some military historians, envisioned a blitzkrieg.[j] However some commentators, including many German participants, make no mention of blitzkrieg in their characterization of the operation.[k]"

Notes [j] and [k] expound with more details. EyeTruth (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why can you not just make a suggestion on the talk page like everyone else? Why do you just edit to what you believe would be a balanced solution?  How do you arrive at the assumption that the other editors will agree that what you wrote is a balanced solution?  Why not just ask them first?  It is curious to me.Gunbirddriver (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Last I checked you have not even replied to the suggestion I posted. BTW, didn't you just say that the way to go is: "Be bold... Just do it." EyeTruth (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did reply to your suggestion by offering a counter proposal. Your suggestion is poor because it places the term Blitzkrieg right into the body of the article, as though this were explanatory and informative. It is neither. As pointed out by a number of editors well experienced in military history, the term is vague and has multiple meanings. What we want in the article is to describe the events in a manner that conveys what occured, accurately, succinctly and unambiguously. You have yet to answer my query as to why you believe it is necessary to include the term at all, as what the German plans were can be more clearly described by leaving the term out.

As to the opinion of editors, seven have come out here on this talk page to say the article is better with the term left out of the main body. Those editors are Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus, Binksternet, Azx2, Irondome and myself. Your treatement of these editors has been to brush them aside, and you refuse to recognize the validity of what they are saying. Your brow beating and inappropriate responses are essentially bullying the other editors. This is poor behavior. No editor has argued for specific inclusion of the term, other than yourself. Administrator Nick-D's proposed wording started out "Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation..." That wording would be acceptable to me. It places the disagreement in front of the reader prior to introducing the term. Your "compromise solution" places the term in the body of the article and requires the reader to find a footnote to understand why the term might be misplaced. With your version the reader is left in the dark. That is not preferred. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 August 2013
The term Rasputitsa is not well known, even amongst amateur world war 2 historians, can we please link it to the wikipedia entry to save people from having to look it up manually?

Oneliketadow (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The first use of the word is in the sentence "Operations ceased by the end of March due to the onset of the spring rasputitsa and the exhaustion of the Wehrmacht." where it is already linked. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested solution to the edit war around use of the term "blitzkrieg"
I'm posting this with my non-involved administrator hat on. Per WP:NPOV there's a need to acknowledge significant differences of opinion among experts on topics in the relevant article. That appears to be the case here in relation to whether the German offensive was intended as a "blitzkrieg" or whether a different approach was intended. I would suggest adding a paragraph which explicitly acknowledges this. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following wording: "Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation. X, Y, and Z argue that the Germans hoped to punch through the Soviet defences using blitzkrieg tactics. However, A, B and C state that the German goals were tactical in nature, and were focused mainly on attrition. B and C explicitly state that the operation was not intended as a blitzkrieg."

Attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible, and I'm prepared to impose blocks if the current dispute continues. I'd strongly encourage a discussion of consensus wording here before it's added to the article, though I think that this process would be aided if both the involved editors took a voluntary break from the dispute over the weekend and resumed the discussion with cooler heads. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

✅. I thought it would be better if we both took voluntary break from the dispute over the weekend to cool our heads, but Gunbirddriver seems to be overflowing with energy and is already working on it. EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Gunbirddriver. I've fixed the red "cite error" you left all over the place. I had to revert to the last error-free version and work from there. Below is what I modified in the content.EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)




 * Then note [j] reads: Some commentators, including the participants of Operation Citadel, make no mention of blitzkrieg nor do they characterize it as such. The most striking commentary was from Heinz Guderian, the most prominent of Germany's "tank men", who strongly opposed the operation on the grounds that it violated his principles on the use of armour, although he makes no mention of blitzkrieg (Guderian 1938, pp. 307-308). He predicted the offensive could only achieve a limited result, at a cost too great to justify the effort, saying "The great commitment would certainly not bring equivalent gains" (Guderian 1952, p. 308). He was proved to be correct. However, some military historians consider Operation Citadel, or at least the southern pincer, as envisioning a blitzkrieg attack. Some of the historians that consider it as such include: Lloyd Clark (Clark 2012, p. 187), Roger Moorhouse (Moorhouse 2011, p. 342), Mary Kathryn Barbier (Barbier 2002, p. 10), David Glantz (Glantz 1986, p. 24) (Glantz & House 2004, p. 63, 78, 149, 269, 272, 280), Jonathan House (Glantz & House 2004, p. 63, 78, 149, 269, 272, 280), Hedley Paul Willmott (Willmott 1990, p. 300), Oscar Pinkus (Pinkus 2005, p. 35), etc. Zetterling & Frankson specifically considered only the southern pincer as a blitzkrieg attack (Zetterling & Frankson 2000, p. 137, it describes the German attack in the southern side as a "classical blitzkrieg attack.")

I really think that first sentence may need some citations to back it up or may need to be further reworded. EyeTruth (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See the more balanced version in the "new proposal" below. EyeTruth (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem discussing the controversy in the article. The question is how should the controversy be worded, which I am unsure if EyeTruth and myself could come to an agreement on, and should the discussion be placed in the body of the article, which would disrupt the narrative flow, or in a notation of some sort. Here would be my suggestion for a notation presentation:


 * Some historians, including Clark, Glantz and H.P. Willmott, describe the planning of Operation Citadel to be akin to a blitzkrieg style of attack. Others consider only the southern attack to be a blitzkrieg style attack. However most commentators, including participants who wrote about the battle after the war, do not characterize the planning or execution of the attack as a blitzkrieg style attack.  These include Theodor Busse, Erhard Raus, Friedrich Fangohr, Peter von der Groeben, Friedrich Wilhelm von Mellenthin, Heinz Guderian and Erich von Manstein.  Said von Mellenthin "The German command was committing exactly the same error as in the previouos year.  Then we attacked the city of Stalingrad, now we were to attack the fortress of Kursk.  In both cases the German Army threw away all its advantages in mobile tactics, and met the Russians on ground of their own chosing." In addition, a great number of military historians do not view the battle as a blitzkrieg, including, but not limited, to Healy, Nipe, Newton, Brand and Kasdorf.  Of them all, the most striking commentary came from Heinz Guderian, the most prominent of Germany's "tank men", who strongly opposed the operation on the grounds that it violated his principles for the use of armour. Guderian predicted the offensive could only achieve a limited result, at a cost too great to justify the effort, saying "The great commitment would certainly not bring equivalent gains." The course of events proved him to be correct.

Weasel words: "However most commentators..." Original synthesis: "do not characterize the planning or execution of the attack as a blitzkrieg style attack." Binksternet and I already pointed out that interpreting the meaning of the silence of several sources should be left to the reader. Any such interpretation by editors is tantamount to original synthesis, irrespective of how likely correct it may be. EyeTruth (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the section where this is mentioned is titled German plans and preparation, I would prefer to leave the description of the offensive and its goals as the Germans would have described them, and would leave out after the fact descriptions which the participants would not have agreed with. That would be my preference, anyway. I would be interested to hear again from Binksternet and Sturmvogel 66. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * *Comment - Hallo Gunbirddriver! I simply wanted to say that it actually resonates with me, what you've said about wanting to leave out of the subsection on German plans and preparation any after-the-fact descriptions, verbiage or even single-word terms that the participants on the German side would not have agreed with. And yet as an experienced reader with strong interest in WW2 history, though no specific, detailed knowledge of Citadel beyond the basic framework and most salient details, ironically enough the one spot in the layout and structure of the article where I personally would find any reference to "blitzkrieg" to be useful would be at the point at which it's now considered for inclusion (discussed below). I think this must be b/c it influences how I read the following sections in the article, and even though I still finish reading thinking that Citadel was not blitzkrieg, having the debate brought to my attention early on in the article allows me to factor that into how I read the meat of the text. Anyway, just wanted to share that feedback. I hope that a consensus can be reached and this issue put to bed in a way that all the involved-editors can accept, even if - in compromising - they're not thrilled.  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  05:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(I'm calling on those that have previously contributed to this discussion to kindly spare some time and drop in their thoughts on the "new proposal" outlined below. Hello: User:Binksternet, User:Someone not using his real name,  User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Azx2, User:Irondome, User:Hasteur). EyeTruth (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have done what I believe is a balanced solution. For me, this is no longer about who is wrong or who is right. Hence, I heeded the advice of WP:NPOV policy and gave both sides their due weight; in fact, equal weight. And I took care to word it to perfectly reflect how the dispute runs. That is, some describe it as envisioning (or intending) blitzkrieg, while others (including many German participants) simply make no mention of the term in their description. It is simple with no extra interpretation for either side of the argument. It is best to avoid original synthesis and let readers make up their own mind. Also I kept it as brief as possible so as not to disrupt the flow of the text CHECK IT OUT.

But Gunbirddriver disagrees with it. He still believes that presenting one point of view in the main content of the article is feasible. However, we have both been advised by an admin (Nick-D) that "attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible" and he suggested adding a paragraph which explicitly acknowledges the different views (I used only a fraction of a paragraph). Gunbirddriver also argued that it is our place to interpret the meaning of the silence of several sources that do not mention the term. He explained that "their silence speaks volumes". I asked him "who will decide what 'volumes' their silence speak?" (See section Further discussion of blitzkrieg for the full statements). HERE is the version Gunbirddriver prefers. And THIS is the difference between the two versions being compared. Well, he was blocked for 24 hours after reverting it without stating a justifying cause. Gunirddriver has his good reasons for his position but I've come to realize that working towards a solution that satisfies the core Wikipedia policies, and not our personal reasons, is the only way forward. EyeTruth (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hitler's Operational Order No. 6, issued 15 April, called for the Kursk offensive operation to begin on 3 May or shortly thereafter. Kurt Zeitzler, the OKH Chief of Staff, provided the logistical planning for the operation. Zeitzler was a resourceful organizer of strategic moves, and had an exceptional capacity to solve movement problems. For the plan to succeed it was deemed essential to attack before the Soviets had a chance to prepare extensive defenses or launch an offensive of their own. The plan was code named Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel). Citadel envisioned a double envelopment with pincers originating from the bases of the salient and directed at Kursk which would surround the majority of the Soviet defenders and seal off the salient. Kluge's Army Group Centre was to provide General Walter Model's 9th Army to form the northern pincer and cut down through the northern face of the salient, driving to a location to the hills east of Kursk, securing the rail line from Soviet attack.Manstein's Army Group South would commit the 4th Panzer Army under Hermann Hoth and Army Detachment Kempf under Werner Kempf to penetrate the southern face of the salient, driving northwards to meet 9th Army upon the heights east of Kursk. Mainstein's main attack was to be delivered by Hoth's 4th Panzer Army, spearheaded by the II SS Panzer Corps, commanded by Paul Hausser.  Driving north to its left was the XLVIII Panzer Corps, commanded by Otto von Knobelsdorff.  The right flank of the drive was to be covered by Army Detachment "Kempf", under the command of Werner Kempf.  The western face of the salient was to be controlled by the 2nd Army, under the command of Walter Weiss.


 * *Suggestion - Hi guys. EyeTruth asked me if I could offer any feedback or suggestion on how you can move forward. While I can't speak for how much weight should be accorded to each source that contends there was a blitzkrieg aspect to Zitadelle, given that such sources exist, it doesn't seem viable to me now to reject outright the inclusion of the term, but w/ clear caveat that it's not at all universally-accepted. I've read Nick-D's comments and it seems clear that he believes that both Blitzkrieg and No Blitzkrieg perspectives should appear (quote: "Attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible"). I've not been in contact with Gunbirddriver, so I'm not aware if he agrees w/ Nick-D or not, but from collaborating w/ him before I know he's practical, not just passionate. So in light of what Nick-D suggested, and what appeared in one of the diffs mentioning Blitzkrieg, I slightly modified the wording that included the Blitzkrieg/No-Blitzkrieg notes, and offer it below as a Suggested Edit to allow you to move on from this:


 * I included the word "contemporary" to describe the historians who contend that the operation envisioned a blitzkrieg (which would include your 1986 source), to make clear for the reader that there is a difference in perspective b/w those analyzing the operation in present day and men like Guderian and von Manstein who were directly involved in the war, making the history that was later recorded, analyzed and interpreted (although use of "contemporary" implies no qualitative deficiency).


 * I really hope this is helpful to you and that you all can move forward with it. Cheers!  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  21:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the addition of "contemporary" is very good. I also added that "some other military historians" for those that make no mention of the term. EyeTruth (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we discussing here or on the talk page. This may become an long thread. Should there not be a new thread Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If it gets too big, it can be moved. EyeTruth (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * *Comment - Agreed that if this becomes substantial discussion it can be carved out into another separate sub-section of the talk page under a top-level header. EyeTruth, I saw your addition to the text of "some other military historians" and think it a compliment to "contemporary" w/r/t readability and clarity. And for the benefit of those trying to judge the suggested-edit, to make the text in question more visible w/in the complete paragraph I posted, I changed the color of the suggested-addition to . Also, to clarify, the notes I included in the text I simply copied from one of the diffs (the Blitzkrieg/No Blitzkrieg notes). Now I realize there might be multiple versions of those in various diffs, but I don't take a position on them and confine my feedback to potential edit of the main text to address the inclusion of "blitzkrieg" - not how it's explained in detail in the (foot)notes. Cheers.  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  04:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think Gunbirddriver is blocked right now, but hopefully that will expire shortly and he can share his response to the suggested resolution w/r/t inclusion of the text we're discussing (discussing while keeping in mind that Nick-D has clarified that "Attempting to present only one of these points of view is not feasible").  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  04:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I should note that I didn't intend that comment to be binding (which isn't within the powers of admins anyway) - it was my reading of the arguments and sources put forward to that time, and checking my copy of Glantz and House's book on the battle (one of the "pro-Blitzkrieg" works mentioned). If consensus here decides otherwise, that's what should go in the article :) Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This series of edits by EyeTruth looks like a good solution to the problem of how to present the various opinions. I think this is better than the synthesis of trying to form a conclusion taken from various authors' silence on the issue of Kursk-as-blitzkrieg. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will like to add that "User:Someone not using his real name" stated on his talkpage that he has nothing more to add besides what he already said in the DRN case. That still leaves it at 7 editors that have voiced their support for a due weight to be given to each side of the argument. EyeTruth (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So what will happen going forward, once this article is unprotected and opened for editing, EyeTruth? Will it be agreed that a consensus has been reached (if not universal agreement) and some form of the sentence (and notes) discussed above added to the article? Or will it stay just on the talk page for a while still? Also, apologies to Nick-D for misinterpreting his statement as a binding directive.  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on Gunbirddriver. He is still the only editor involved that has flat-out rejected the suggested solution (and maybe also User:Hasteur and User:Irondome). Although, some editors only reluctantly agreed to the solution. Anyways, it would be preferable if no opinion is left behind. So yeah, still waiting on Gunbirddriver to chip in his opinion, unless he has decided to stay silent. EyeTruth (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. This solution is actually not recent. It was proposed during the DRN. Eventually five of the seven editors involved came to support it, although one of the five only reluctantly supported it (Sturmvogel 66). One of the two against it was a primary moderator of the case, that is Hasteur, and the other was Gunbirddriver. The DRN ended up as "unresolved" since four editors disagreed with Hasteur's verdict. The suggested solution could not be effected since Gunbirddriver rejected it. EyeTruth (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Curious that you claim I am silent, when you are editing your previous comments after I have made a reply. A sort of studied thickness. Let me place my comment here directly below your most recent comment so that you cannot miss it. Your suggestion is poor because it places the term Blitzkrieg right into the body of the article, as though this were explanatory and informative. It is neither. As pointed out by a number of editors well experienced in military history, the term is vague and has multiple meanings. Among those who have commented on the vagueness and common misunderstanding of the term is the editor EyeTruth, convincingly making the case against his own position. What we want in the article is to describe the events in a manner that conveys what occured accurately, succinctly and unambiguously. EyeTruth has yet to answer my query as to why he believes it is so necessary to include the term at all, as what the German plans were can be more clearly described by leaving the term out.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not in Wikipedia to present my own view. I'm here to present notable views of credible sources. I'm anal about sources, simple as that. I know you find it hard to understand such mentality. But please don't be baffled that I've also made personal arguments against the views of other secondary sources that I've presented in Wikipedia. EyeTruth (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As to the opinion of other editors, seven have come out here on this talk page to say the article is better with the term left out of the main body. Those editors are Sturmvogel 66, Diannaa, Herostratus, Binksternet, Azx2, Irondome and myself. Your treatement of these editors has been to brush them aside, and you refuse to recognize the validity of what they are saying. Several have been willing to accept a compromise position with some of your wording, but these are consessions, not frank support. Your brow beating and inappropriate responses are essentially bullying the other editors. This is poor behavior. No editor has argued for specific inclusion of the term, other than yourself. Administrator Nick-D's proposed wording started out "Historians disagree over whether the German offensive was intended as a blitzkrieg operation..." That wording would be acceptable to me. It places the disagreement in front of the reader prior to introducing the term. Your "compromise solution" places the term in the body of the article and requires the reader to find a footnote to understand why the term might be misplaced. With your version the reader is left in the dark. That is not preferred.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a war. Stop seeing it as one. Maybe you haven't noticed but there are three sides to this dispute. There are those who support EXCLUSION, those who support INCLUSION, and those who support DUE WEIGHT to be given to both sides of the argument. Gunbirddriver, you are currently the only editor that is NOT in the "due weight" category. Every other editor at some point have voiced their support for a due weight. BTW, stop cherry picking statements from Nick-D's proposal made above. You still don't have any sources to be able to write the third sentence in Nick-D's proposal. And the first sentence of the proposal, which you cherry picked, explicitly builds on the third. BTW, having learned from experience, I will not waste any effort feeding your baseless accusations of misconduct with any comments. EyeTruth (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the suggested solution. And good job EyeTruth!  Caden  cool  03:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Caden :D EyeTruth (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Azx2, you once mentioned that you didn't know what the notes had. I've put them up, (open the collapsible). EyeTruth (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for arranging a revised layout of the information, so that the notes are more clearly visible here in this discussion, EyeTruth. Ironically, I think that your doing so has helped me better understand Gunbirddriver's position, as reflected in his comments concerning the explicit articulation of historical disagreement, and how, in the structure of Nick-D's originally-proposed text, the disagreement was noted before the introduction of the subject of the disagreement (blitzkrieg). I don't think User:Gunbirddriver is being fastidious in continuing to express discontent, and I understand the importance of not overlooking ostensibly-small details that could have a proportionally-greater influence on the reader's perception of the characterization of the operation...
 * As GBD noted, from the outset I made clear that I am not pro-Blitzkrieg, and I don't think including the term in the main body is explanatory or informative as much as it is trivial, but, at the same time, I've been unwilling to take a hard-line position and oppose some mention of the fact that there is a contemporary historical disagreement...hence my acceptance of a compromise solution that involves a combination of main-body text and Notes. In short, I didn't think it worth fighting over.
 * That said, I have a question, EyeTruth: User:Gunbirddriver states, "No editor has argued for specific inclusion of the term, other than yourself." <<< is that true?  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hehehehe, no, that is not true. I will present everything to you in the original context and where you can find and confirm them for yourself, with no bs. You're aware that Gunbirddriver still insists that Binkersternet is against the inclusion, even though it is so evidently clear that he is not. In fact, see the DRN discussion for yourself. Well, initially Binkersternet was against my position (See the talkpage section) because he assumed I was saying that Citadel was a classic example of blitzkrieg, which is not what I was saying (See Binksternet's opening comment DRN). Binksternet later explained his position and offered support for inclusion (See the DRN discussion). 7 editors made relevant contributions in the DRN discussion, and 4 of them explicitly supported inclusion, but the primary DRN volunteer was against it; as such, the discussion bugged down. Also it was stated and agreed upon early in the DRN discussion by two DRN volunteers that a simple majority alone would not be enough to resolve the dispute (See the DRN discussion). After the DRN, this is what Sturmvogel said: "While I don't agree that it was a blitzkrieg in any way, the consensus, such as it was with the editors who did comment, would seem to be to call it a failed blitzkrieg. But I'd suggest adding in a note that many historians do not agree with that assessment and fail to characterize it as such." (in this talk page). In the DRN try and see if you can identify the only editor's opening comment that refused to recognize the dispute as a content-dispute (See DRN opening comments). DRN was essentially crap to that editor (my own assessment). Azx2 frankly, you can just ignore my words and just check out the WP pages cited in the brackets and you will have your answer. Trivia: Do you know that Gunbirddriver was able to get me blocked by reporting an extremely warped account of this dispute? Oh well, the admin later pointed out that he didn't dig in deep and apologized for the mistake (See my block log). His proficiency at miscoloring a situation scares me. EyeTruth (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That no other editors are explicitly advocating for the inclusion of the term "blitzkrieg" in the main body of the article text? Are the other editors who will tolerate a main-body mention of blitzkrieg just doing so out of a desire to compromise and avoid conflict (noble aims, mind you)? Because if that's the case (although we should be very clear and explicit here in acknowledging each editor's position), and Eyetruth is the only editor who wants the term mentioned in the main body of the article, then perhaps the compromise is more his to make and the reference to blitzkrieg should be in the note, and not inline (unless Nick-D's "disagreement"-text was approved). All along I've been operating under the belief that there was an already-established consensus b/w multiple editors who wanted the term included in the article in-line (as opposed to just wanting to resolve the editing conflict b/w ET and GBD), but it sounds like that might not be correct? Would someone clarify this for me, please? Thanks.  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  20:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, well I guess I was a bit late in asking this and polling has already begun for which blitzkrieg solution to implement. I'll review those now and note my choice w/ any feedback, too. Cheers.  <b style="color:#F50">Az</b><b style="color:#600">x</b><b style="color:#000">2</b>  20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Vote here to establish a blitzkrieg consensus
If we are to take a vote, we should leave the voting open at least until September 7th. There is no rush to reach a conclusion. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This drama have been dragged out way too long. It should have ended many weeks ago. 3rd September was Irondome's original suggestion. I can manage to support that date. One week is more than enough. EyeTruth (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Inserting the term blitzkrieg into the article to describe the German plan is not moving the article forward. The change is opposed with good reason.Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * People, I am good with the 7th if GBD percieves a time issue. Another 96 hours wont kill us. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)