Talk:Marshall Plan/Archive 2

Loans? Not
None of the ERP (Marshall Plan) money was in the form of loans--it was all grants says The Marshall Plan today: model and metaphor by John Agnew, J. Nicholas Entrikin, p 94. See the Repayments section on the London Debt Agreement, which covered repayment of loans made to Germany before the Marshall Plan (mostly in 1920s and 1946-47). Rjensen (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. Rjensen, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. However, I do know that your revert, and the text here above, is not making you look very good. Maybe you should please take the time to actually read the source that you are referring to here above, so that you may understand the depth of your misunderstanding of the topic "Marshall plan".


 * There is nothing that supports your claims on page 94 of The Marshall Plan today: model and metaphor. If you however continue to page 95 (both are available as preview on google books) you will find a clear explanation of the 3 types of aid that were part of the Marshall plan Allotments. 1:Grants, which essentially were gifts. 2:loans, self explanatory. 3:conditional aid. If you respond without reading it I'll take this matter to "request for comment", where we also at the same time can discuss the matter of you frequently deleting references while using misleading edit-summaries such as "add cites"!


 * Mr. Rjensen, I am further outraged by your deletion the text that for example included the Irish situation, where the country received 128.2 million USD as loans, and a measly 18 million USD as grants. You really should read the source you deleted, Gary Murphy, In search of the promised land: the politics of post-war Ireland, p.70 It spends a whole chapter following the political maneuvers of the Irish government when they tried to get the U.S. to give them the Marshall plan aid as grants instead of as loans, but in the end failed miserably. I am hoping you deleted this without even reading it, no matter how it makes you look, for the alternative is even worse.


 * Mr. Rjensen, you are apparently deeply mislead about the 1953 London Debt Agreement as well, since you are using your very private and singular interpretation of its contents to support your amazing claim that all the Marshall plan aid was in the form of grants. Again, Mr. Rjenssen, you are WRONG. The London Debt agreement dealt with ALL of the German debt, every one, from those incurred by the Reich before the war all the way through including the GARIOA debt and the entire Marshall plan. The U.S. could not strongly influence the other claimants to drop their claims, but it could help the German economy get going by converting a very large chunk of the German Marshall plan loans into grants, which the US did.
 * Let me quote from a source that I assume you yourself have been using VERGANGENHEITSBEWÄLTIGUNG: THE 1953 LONDON DEBT AGREEMENT"


 * Now, Mr. Rjenssen, I've taken the time to lay it out very nicely to you. If you once more claim that the Marshall plan consisted entirely of free gifts then I can very well imagine smoke comming out my ears. Have a nice day Sir!--Stor stark7 Speak 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

US Aid to India
Here is proof from an official US government document cited in footnote 89 that the US provided foreign aid to India of $255 million in the postwar period. Rjensen (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Plan aid loans or no loans
I've deleted "The Marshall Plan aid was not a loan and there was no repayment." from the summary as it was uncited and contradicted a cited reference latter in the article. "The UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans.[71]". Source [71] appears valid given my limited knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.114.44 (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * loans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.210.114.106 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticism, Modern Cato Institute reference
This reference here: http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vasquez-030509.html, dead link and considering the political nature of the organisation and its findings in relation to Belgium is not without obvious potential for vested interest; I think it should be at least corroborated. 81.158.209.208 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Weird information about Jordanian dinars
I just read the intro and don't understand why this "(approximately JD 113,600,000,000 in current Jordanian dinar value)" line exists, what has the Marshal Plan to do with Jordanian dinar value? If anything it should be converted into Deutsche Mark or the Euro.

I guess it isn't really important, but it is irritating to me.

Yell0w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.153.135 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is important! The original comparison was from dollars then to dollars now. Somebody slipped 'dinars' in about three hours ago, and I'm glad that you brought it to attention.  I've fixed it -- and thanks again! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Marshall Plan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110905053731/http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/highlights.html?action=view&intID=345 to http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/highlights.html?action=view&intID=345

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction about Eastern Europe
The following part seemes self contradictory: "Economic recovery in the east was much slower than in the west, and the economies never fully recovered in the communist period, resulting in the formation of the shortage economies and a gap in wealth between East and West. (...) By mid-1948 industrial production in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia had recovered to a level somewhat above pre-war level." Is there a "contradictory" tag in wikipedia? Filanca (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Added POV to a paragraph
Based on a change in writing style compared to the rest of the article, the use of "we" to refer to the United States, lack of citation, and the inclusion of a disputable opinion presented as probable fact, I used the POV Template to identify a section called "The Marshall Plan" (which the entire article is already entitled). Were this paragraph to be rewritten and cited under "Criticism" it would more likely pass muster as belonging on Wikipedia. Wikipedia Username: Nordicman72 Nordicman72 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Recalcitrant definition
re·cal·ci·trant1

/rəˈkalsətrənt/

adjective 1.having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline:

synonyms: uncooperative, intractable, obstreperous, truculent; More

noun 1.a person with an obstinately uncooperative attitude.

Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

173.86.59.46 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marshall Plan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419195002/http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2008/webarticles/080103_marshallplan.html to http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2008/webarticles/080103_marshallplan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122130923/https://www.cato.org/research/articles/vasquez-030509.html to http://www.cato.org/research/articles/vasquez-030509.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060709055340/http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/history/marshall.html to http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/history/marshall.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Public Opinion Section
Domestic Campaign for Support[edit] Prior to passing and enacting the Marshall Plan, President Truman along with George Marshall started on a domestic overhaul of public opinion from coast to coast. Not only was the purpose of this campaign to sway public opinion in their direction, but also to inform the common person of what the Marshall Plan was, and what it would ultimately do. They spent months attempting to convince American’s that their cause was just, and that they should embrace the higher taxes that would come in the foreseeable future.[116]

A copious amount of propaganda ended up being highly affective in swaying public opinion towards supporting the Marshall Plan. During the nationwide campaign for support, “more than a million pieces of pro-Marshall Plan publications-booklets, leaflets, reprints, and fact sheets,” were disseminated.[117] Truman and Marhsall’s efforts proved to be effective. In a Gallup Poll taken between the months of July and December of 1947, it shows the percentage of Americans unaware of the Marshall Plan fell from 51% to 36% nationwide.[118] By the time the Marshall Plan was ready to be implemented, there was a general consensus throughout the American public that this was the right policy for both America, and the countries who would be receiving aid.

Change in American Ideology[edit] During the period leading up to World War II, Americans were highly isolationist. In fact, many called The Marshall Plan a “milestone” for American ideology.[119] By looking at polling data overtime from pre-World War II to post-World War II, one would find that there was a change in public opinion in regards to ideology. American’s swapped their isolationist ideals for a much more global internationalists ideology after World War II.

Polling Data[edit] In a poll taken in October of 1943, respondents were asked, “If a candidate for President in 1944--either Democratic or Republican--made the following statements about what our policies should be after the war, which one would meet with your greatest approval?" They were given the choices, "A. We must give all necessary aid to friendly countries even at a good deal of sacrifice to ourselves." or "B. We must not give so much aid to foreign countries that it will lower our standard of living here in this country.” Over 60% of respondents said that the U.S. must not give too much foreign aid that it would lower our standard of living here in this country.[120] However, in a poll taken by the National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago in June of 1952, respondents were asked the question, “Do you approve or disapprove of continuing to send economic aid to western Europe, like we have been doing under the Marshall Plan?” In response, 61% of Americans said they approved of continuing to send economic aid to western Europe.[121] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliannalandau (talk • contribs) 19:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

````November 23, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliannalandau (talk • contribs) 19:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

CIA conspiracies make for bad history with no connection to Marshall Plan
We should avoid the very bad quality unreliable "histories" of Oliver Stone--he's famous for preposterous conspiracies that make exciting movies and bad history. Weiner's history of the CIA is better but he does not make the claims in the our CIA section (which is based on Stone),. For example the Wiki text that "Marshal Plan funds were also used to support a Ukrainian right-wing guerilla group". That is not true and is not in Weiner. As for manipulating an election that refers to Italy in early 1948, BEFORE Marshall funds were available. Weiner says Marshall Plan moneys were controlled by Washington and allocated to the CIA -- but ERP had zero role in this. Weiner p 30 gives the sources of CIA $$ for Italy in 1948 and he does NOT list Marshall Plan money. Rjensen (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The co-author of Stone is a professsional historian, so you need to bring convincing arguments to reject the work as fringe. While Weiner does not explicitly say MP funds were used for supporting the Ukrainians, it does say that the Marshall Plan money enabled the CIA to fund secret operations in a grand plan against Stalin, including support and infiltration of groups in Soviet-dominated countries. (Weiner also talks about Lebed and the Nicthingale, again without an explicit link with the Marshall Plan). There is no reference in our text to elections in Italy, nor to manipulating elections, so I’m not sure what are you arguing against.Anonimu (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's more detail on why it's very bad history that misleads our readers, There is no linkage between ERP and Ukraine. the claim about manipulating elections does not mention any specific countries--perhaps because there were no such actions. As for "Marshall Plan Money what happened is that the cash in local currencies went to the local US  embassy, and it was no longer under Marshall Plan supervision or knowledge. There was zero Ukrainian money involved. As for Peter Kuznick, he is not an expert on European history (he studies scientists in US and Japan).  the Stone-Kuznick publisher states that their book is fringe and is not compatible with the consensus of scholars ( Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick challenge the prevailing orthodoxies of traditional history books''). Wiki goes with the consensus, and Stone goes with conspiracies--the stranger the better. Rjensen (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Similar aid programs in Asia
The second paragraph here says "The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not part of the Marshall Plan."

Can someone provide another article I can link this to? What aid programs were provided in Asia? A link in the See Also section might also be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mghoffmann (talk • contribs) 06:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We need another article, and it should be based on Harry Bayard Price, The Marshall Plan and its Meaning (Cornell UP, 1955), pp  179-219. Rjensen (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Marshall Plan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130806040018/http://www.brookings.edu/about/history/marshallplan to http://www.brookings.edu/about/history/marshallplan
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070803202225/http://www.marshallfoundation.org/library/oral_histories_miall_interview.html to http://www.marshallfoundation.org/library/oral_histories_miall_interview.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714183802/http://isc.temple.edu/hist249/course/Documents/vyshinsky_speech_to_un.htm to http://isc.temple.edu/hist249/course/Documents/vyshinsky_speech_to_un.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060727123239/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/1928/3.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/1928/3.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For serious historians only: The Marshall-Plan Hoax
The general understanding of the wonderful Marshal-Plan is false.

Visit https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/marshallhoax.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.106.88 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC) But the owners of that website are understood very well, as they decided to be VERY ANONYMOUS, hiding behind a anonymizer. Which means, not trustworthy at all.

"Most reject the idea that..."
The sentence "Most reject the idea that it alone miraculously revived Europe since the evidence shows that a general recovery was already underway" appears 3 times in different sections of the article. A bit redundant, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:C108:8F00:A0E2:231D:8B31:90DF (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It also applies to section of "Modern criticism", it could use a sentence how some critics miss the point saying that free market reforms and economic cooperation and Ludwig Erhart were more important, when in fact, the Marshall plan outright demanded opening of the markets, economic cooperation between countries, planning of international railroad and highway networks, and that each recipient of the money must also lower trade barriers and deregulate, etc. Immediately after hearing the Mashall plan speech on the radio, the french and british ministers had a phone call about it, how are they going to make plans. The purpose of the Marshall plan was to, quote "give hope", and hope for a better future is what drives the economy. As far as Germany goes, it was the Marshall plan which DOUBLED the German steel quotas and pushed for coal mining to drive industries of the whole europe, it also SAID that economically strong Germany was key to the stability of Europe (Germany being the source of specialist and high-tech industry and machinery), and exactly that has happened. In the end, the announcement and existence of the Marshall plan helped Czechoslovakia and Poland, who were driven to make advance plans for their economies, latter of which received huge support from the Soviet Union because of later public rejection of the plan. They wouldn't have got it if it were not for the plan. There was also the soviet response with their own plan later, which also would have not existed were it not for the original. And once more about the Germany: Ludwig Erhart was also a part of the Marshall plan, he was executing the whole idea behind it. It was the Marshall plan that ended the previous punitive measures, which would cause 25 million more people to be out of jobs. But I guess some critics like to forget that. The previous measures limited food to 1000-1500 calories a day, Marshall plan was what ended it, and let me tell you, being fed well is what gives you strength to build the economy.

Marshall Plan

German economic miracle

Neutral Point Of View
This entire article does not use original sources. For example, if Molotov made a statement, they should say, "Molotov said," ________". Instead, they use this source: Wettig, Gerhard (2008). Stalin and the Cold War in Europe. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-5542-6.

However, this source is not trustworthy with regards to the USSR since he has appeared in multiple CIA conferences including this one on Disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 16:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , See WP:RS. Wikipedia works from reliable independent secondary sources, not primary sources, and that is by design. This is a book from a reputable publishing house and appears to be by a respected author (we don't have an article here but there's de:Gerhard Wettig). Guy (help!) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that a SECONDARY SOURCE that cites the exact words of Molotov is less reliable than an interpretation of what Molotov felt?  This is objectively insane.
 * A republishing of Molotov's words in a CIA document would be primary - it's not analytical. But you haven't identified the page you want to cite so who knows? Guy (help!) 23:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Nonesensical Metaphors
How can Washington realize things? Was it members of the Truman administration? Who? "By July 1947 Washington realized that economic recovery in Europe could not go forward without the reconstruction of the German industrial base, deciding that an 'orderly, prosperous Europe requires the economic contributions of a stable and productive Germany.' In addition, the strength of Moscow-controlled communist parties in France and Italy worried Washington."

Only One Side Presented
Marshall's direct statement is there. After the adjournment of the Moscow conference following six weeks of failed discussions with the Soviets regarding a potential German reconstruction, the United States concluded that a solution could not wait any longer. To clarify the American position, a major address by Secretary of State George Marshall was planned. Marshall gave the address at Harvard University on June 5, 1947. He offered American aid to promote European recovery and reconstruction. The speech described the dysfunction of the European economy and presented a rationale for US aid. The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. ... Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the United States. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.

However, Molotov's direct statement is missing. Therefore, it favors one side over the other.

This is Molotov's statement: Therefore, the question of American economic aid of which indeed nothing definite is yet known has now provided an occasion for the British and French Governments to seek the creation of a new organization standing over and above the countries of Europe and interfering in their internal affairs down to determining the line of development to be followed by the main branches of industry in these countries. Furthermore, Great Britain and France together with the countries close to them are laying claim to a predominant position in this organization or in the so-called “Steering Committee” for Europe as it has been named in the British draft.

Verbal reservations are now being made to the effect that this organization would allegedly not intervene in the internal affairs of these states and would not encroach upon their sovereignty. But it clearly follows from the tasks which are being set before this organization or before the “Steering Committee” that the European countries would find themselves placed under control and would lose their former economic and national independence because it so pleases certain strong powers

Shouldn't the side which opposed the Marshall plan also be included with the side that supported it? Or else, it paints the USSR as ridiculously evil.

Highly opinionated language
Along with the UN, many humanist ideas were circulating over the five-year period that ensued its formation. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) date from this time. One of the ideas proposed in 1947 at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment (UNCTE) was the International Trade Organization (ITO). The GATT was first conceived around that time too. Why is the IMF and the World Bank described as humanist? Why is GATT described as humanist? What is a humanist idea?

Stalin opinions
How do you know what Stalin thought? How did we know that he changed his outlook? "Stalin only changed his outlook when he learned that (a) credit would only be extended under conditions of economic cooperation and, (b) aid would also be extended to Germany in total, an eventuality which Stalin thought would hamper the Soviets' ability to exercise influence in western Germany."

Manuevering
Initially, Stalin maneuvered to kill the Plan, or at least hamper it by means of destructive participation in the Paris talks regarding conditions. He quickly realized, however, that this would be impossible after Molotov reported—following his arrival in Paris in July 1947—that conditions for the credit were non-negotiable. Looming as just as large a concern was the Czechoslovak eagerness to accept the aid, as well as indications of a similar Polish attitude.


 * 1) "Kill the plan OR at least hamper it by means of destructive participation" sounds extensively like an opinion or speculation.
 * 2) How do you know he quickly "realized" something.
 * 3) "Looming as a large concern" for whom?

Economic Recovery
"Most of Europe's economies were recovering slowly, as unemployment and food shortages led to strikes and unrest in several nations. Agricultural production was 83% of 1938 levels, industrial production was 88%, and exports 59%"

This is misleading because it varied from place to place.

Conflicting Statements
"The United States was already spending a great deal to help Europe recover. Over $14 billion was spent or loaned during the postwar period through the end of 1947 and is not counted as part of the Marshall Plan. Much of this aid was designed to restore infrastructure and help refugees. Britain, for example, received an emergency loan of $3.75 billion." Earlier in the document, it mentions $12 billion and now it is $14 billion? Which one is the real number?

Anti-Communist Bias
Why is a communist insurgency a threat? It should be a communist insurgency fighting in Greece. Also, it is Truman's opinion that capitalists are "free" and communists are not free. With a communist, although non-Soviet, insurgency threatening Greece, and Britain financially unable to continue its aid, the President announced his Truman Doctrine on March 12, 1947, "to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures", with an aid request for consideration and decision, concerning Greece and Turkey.

Openly-admitted Bias by Wikipedia editor
A wikipedia editor says,"Something about history being written by winners" AKA that wikipedia's policy is having pro-western bias. Therefore, not being neutral or trustworthy. http://archive.is/wip/KNOPV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshaparvathi (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia follows the reliable sources. If the majority of historical sources are pro-western on this topic, so too will be the Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You have not cited "a majority" of historical sources. The majority of the article cites ONE source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#cite_ref-wettig116_48-0 10 times.  If a source is biased, it is by definition NOT reliable. Eshaparvathi (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to that opinion, but on Wikipedia we have established guidelines for that constitutes a reliable source, which you can find at Reliable_sources. Sources are specifically not required to be unbiased. - MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * all Wikipedia editors have their own opinions on the topics they write about. The SUGGESTED goal is to edit AS IF they were neutral. The POLICY is that the article covers both/all sides when the RS are in disagreement. Rjensen (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone has a problem with a page like this using the same source 10 times, whether "biased" or not (hint: every source is biased. period.) then the person objecting should go ahead and do some work to update the sources themselves. Why complain? Fix if you don't like it. Isn't that the point here? [rant over] --gobears87 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed spinoff of two sections to new article
I propose moving sections 4 and 6 (about Stalin and Eastern Europe) to a new article. They explain why the Marshall Plan did not occur in eastern Europe and have nothing to say about the plan itself, or what actually did happen. Rjensen (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Germany
West Germany cumulative: $1,448 mil. The proportion of Marshall Plan loans versus Marshall Plan grants was roughly 15% to 85% for both the UK and France… In the 1953 Debt agreement, the amount of Marshall plan aid that Germany was to repay was reduced to less than US$1 billion. This made the proportion of loans versus grants to Germany similar to that of France and the UK.

What?

2A00:1028:83D8:3E3E:C4B1:1C4E:CD0:AF90 (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Four years?
The Plan ended in 1951, so why "it operated for four years"? ,

Quotes from the article:

"The Marshall Plan was replaced by the Mutual Security Plan at the end of 1951;"

"Thus the plan ended in 1951" MarMi wiki (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess if you count the years in which the plan operated, it is four years (1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951). MarMi wiki (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides there are disagreements about the ending year (1951/2) (similar for the total sum of spent money). MarMi wiki (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Warsaw Pact Logo.svg

Multiple referencing styles
Probably as a result of the efforts of diverse editors over the years, this article has multiple referencing styles. This issue was also mentioned prominently in the FAR/FARC when the article was delisted from WP:FA. I would like to standardize them, if no one objects. In particular, I would alter them to rely on sfn to link to the references. I just finished doing the same thing to George Marshall and Battle of Chosin Reservoir... Will wait about 3 days for replies. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * PS - Actually, this one is extra messy. Given that the issue was raised in the FAR/FARC, I'm gonna go ahead and start. If anyone is unhappy, we can discuss... &diams; Lingzhi.Random (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on. And thanks for inviting me to help you with the first pass at organizing the references. It looks most of the citations have now been standardized, pending some small stylistic choices. They are now ready for updating as many of the citations are incomplete: They sometimes lack page numbers, templates need to be completed, citations verified. But, this is a relatively minor issue, in my opinion. It appears that all the information needed is in the article is available. In fact, it might be the case that some of the references and further reading could be pruned.
 * The bigger issue from my perspective is the article structure. This is best illustrated in the lead, seems which doesn't seem to follow MOS:INTRO. It is filled with information that doesn't appear elsewhere in the article, and the points and their citations get quite complex for a summary.  This may require someone to take on a lead editor role here to restructure the article to include all the information in the lead and rebuild the lead as a brief summary. (Also, I feel a lead should have no citations, though I'd support whatever choice a lead editor would take.) This restructuring would take a bit of work. If someone adopts this article to restructure it, I will certainly help as a supporting editor. Wtfiv (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eliannalandau.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)