Talk:Tartu offensive

Article Name
I think article's name Tartu Offensive looks the battle only from Soviet side, because that name was not used by Estonians or Germans. DJ Sturm (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a problem but I don't see a better solution. It was a Soviet offensive operation against a german defensive, not an Estonian campaign. The article should be titled either after the soviet or the german campaign. The previous title Combat in south estonia 1944 was not a proper name but an idiom. --Erikupoeg (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not Battle of Tartu or Battle of Emajõgi? DJ Sturm (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Because per WP:MILMOS we must seek for a common name for the campaign. Battle of Tartu and Battle of Emajõgi are how the campaign is called by Estonians. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But those names are better than Tartu Offensive, because this is how the campaign is called by Soviets and not neutral. DJ Sturm (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but this seems to be the common practice in the Eastern Front articles to name them after the offensive operation e.g. Operation Barbarossa, Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive, Baltic Offensive, Riga Offensive (1944), Tallinn Offensive. See also the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Narva_(1944)&diff=249453328&oldid=249452403. The Baltic campaigns of 1944 lack a common name in Western literature, therefore these bear the proper name given by the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia. If we change Tartu Offensive to Battle of Tartu, we must change all of the Baltic campaigns accordingly (Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive => merged to Siege of Leningrad; Baltic Offensive => Battle of the Baltic, 1944 etc.). In practice, this would lead to huge re-scoping of articles, as the Soviet campaigns were conveniently scoped according to their victories. For instance, the Battle of the Baltic, 1944 would have to include the Battle of Narva (1944). And what would you call Riga Offensive and Tallinn Offensive? Battle of Riga and Battle of Tallinn? -- Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Soviet-used name better than the Estonian-used one? Only Estonian name is neutral. Articles with name offensive or operation are looking events from only one side. Here are also articles like Battle of Kursk, Battle of Moscow, Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Berlin, Battle of Smolensk, Battle of Kiev, etc. DJ Sturm (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * None of your examples are good for the case, as each of these is a common name in literature, unlike "Battle of Tartu" which hardly gives a result in the Google search outside Wikipedia. There are plenty of featured and good articles named an offensive or an operation, which are written from the point of view of both sides. To take a closer example, Tallinn Offensive is written in a perfectly neutral maner. The logic is, that usually the offensive side sets the pace for a campaign. In the context of the Eastern Front, there is no problem with the neutrality in an article named after a Soviet offensive operation, as by default, a German defensive campaign corresponds to a Soviet offensive operation.
 * There are also problems with the names "Battle of Tartu" and "Battle of Emajõgi", as none of them adequately covers the geographic scope of the campaign, which involved decisive battles in Petseri, Mehikoorma, the Väike-Emajõgi river, Elva, Kärevere, Tartu, and the Emajõgi river. Tartu was not even the key defensive point for the Germans nor the main strategic goal for the Soviets. Instead, the main Soviet aim was the destruction of Army Group "Narwa", who narrowly escaped it. The Soviets called the operation Tartu Offensive only after failing to break through the Väike-Emajõgi-Võrtsjärv-Emajõgi line as if all they had ever wanted from the offensive was Tartu. At least it's the common name for the operation in Soviet literature. Neither "Battle of Tartu" (Tartu lahing(ud)) nor "Battle of Emajõgi" (Emajõe lahing(ud)) are common in Estonian literature. Actually, a whole variety of names and idioms are used for the campaign, most notably "Emajõgi 1944: II Maailmasõja lahingud Lõuna-Eestis" (Emajõgi 1944: Combat of Second World War in South Estonia) by Mart Laar. I'm not sure which name Eesti Entsüklopeedia uses.


 * Anyways, Battle of Tartu is neither a commonly accepted name for the campaign, nor did it involve only a single battle. If we had to coin a name, it would be a "campaign" not a "battle" with the geographic scope "South Estonia" or "Southeast Estonia", not Tartu nor Emajõgi. The name would also need a specify the time scope, so that it didn't overlap with Tallinn Offensive starting on 17 Sept in the surroundings of Tartu (remember, we do not have the right to determine the time scope of a campaign without reference). So a proper name would be something like Campaign of South Estonia (August and first half of September, 1944). -- Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Campaign vs Operation
Interestingly for all of DJ Sturm's expressed concerns about POV, this article is written primarily from a German perspective. Not bad enough to warrant a globalize tag, though. --Illythr (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Illythr, all you've proposed so far is stating that this was a Soviet operation (no German forces involved?). Anything particular you'd like to point out that's written from a German perspective? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a military offensive operation does tend to have opposing forces involved in one way or another. Operation Platinum Fox, to name one, was an Axis operation and I daresay it did have Soviet forces involved. So did the Soviet Operation Iskra and innumerable other tactical and strategic operations. And I did not "propose" anything - the fact that it is a Soviet operation is already made clear by both its name and operational scope. I have also provided a source that leaves no place for speculation about the operation's goals. One important note is that the Tartu Offensive is not a campaign by itself - it is a tactical engagement that was part of a Soviet strategic campaign to capture Estonia, or, more correctly, to cut off Army Group North from Army Group Centre and Eastern Prussia.--Illythr (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't redirect the Combat in South Estonia, 1944 article here to represent the Soviet POV of a campaign as per WP:MILMOS, "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other)," but as "the most common name used to refer to the event" per WP:MILMOS. If you feel, Tartu Operation causes the article "to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other," per WP:MILMOS, the name should be changed back. Otherwise try to avoid pushing Soviet POV with edits like "Tartu Operation was a Soviet offensive." It was just as well a German defensive and both sides should be represented equally in the lead and the main body --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That the Tartu Offensive operation was a Soviet operation is not some "Soviet POV", but an obvious fact (deserving a "duh!"). Of course, Germans had to defend against the Soviet attack and had their own defensive operations during this time, but the fact remains that this was a Soviet offensive. I mean, come on, Operation Barbarossa was an Axis campaign, and nobody has complained so far that stating this simple fact is somehow "pushing German POV" (Just look at this list or its many "siblings"). Moreover, the stating of this fact has nothing to do with POV - in no way it hinders us from describing the actions of both sides accurately and fairly, within the operational scope that has already been set. Basically, all it really says is that the Soviets attacked the Germans at this place and time. Where' the POV in that? --Illythr (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I sincerely don't get the concept of a military campaign being a Soviet campaign (or Estonian or Australian for that matter). A campaign usually involves two or more parties so it intrinsically cannot belong to anybody, say, to the Soviet side. Per WP:MILMOS, "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other)." I sincerely don't know why the policy is widely violated in the case of a number of WWII articles. My first guess is that they are named after Soviet and German operations because these are the most common names for the campaigns. The WP:MILMOS#CODENAME policy clearly states the danger of an article named after one side's operation becomes written from the POV of the side. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So then, whose campaign was Operation Barbarossa? Operation Bagration? By the way, note the difference between an operation codename (Bagration), which is what MILMOS#CODENAME concerns itself with, and the actual name of the operation (Belorussian Strategic Offensive Operation) - you seem to confuse the two. And I'd say, "Tartu Offensive" does give a good indication of where the action took place, too. Of course, using codenames that don't, like Operation Just Reward would be confusing to the reader (and highly POV indeed), unless that codename is very widely known. But there's absolutely no POV either in calling a Soviet operation a Soviet operation or using its geographic name. The potential POV problem on focusing too much on the Soviet side is a non-issue here, where the opposite is the case (well, a bit less now). That MILMOS guideline has a boilerplate on top of the page that tells us to use common sense for a reason.
 * By the way, take a look at what a military campaign is. Does this phrase have a different connotation in Estonian? --Illythr (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, there might be a misunderstanding here. Let me make an assertion based on your response: You think that after I define this battle as a Soviet offensive, I will then proceed to remove all mention of German reaction, kick out the "unpleasant truth" about the Soviet failure at Emajõgi and then happily proclaim this operation a Soviet victory? --Illythr (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fortune teller, I cannot see the future. When I see something written from a POV, I try to fix it. E.g, a campaign that I call a "campaign fought over South Estonia in 1944" changed to a "Soviet offensive in southern Estonia," I'll edit it. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it seemed that by equalizing "Soviet operation" with "no German forces involved" above, you didn't understand how an article about such an operation would look. As this is apparently not the case (seems to be a POV issue instead), I'll just drop it. Although I'm somewhat curious, what did lead you to make the above equation. --Illythr (talk) 12:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that WP:MILMOS demands articles to be written from the neutral point of view, not from the POV of one side. The words:"... was a Soviet operation" denote a Soviet POV. To the Soviet Tartu Offensive corresponds a German defensive campaign. The first sentence should communicate dealing with both campaigns at a time. The name of the article is Tartu Offensive not because it aims only at describing a Soviet operation but because it is the common name for the campaign. If the issue of it being communicated as a Soviet operation keeps rising, I will join DJ Sturm's party and start strongly proposing a name like "Combat in South Estonia, 1944". --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not MILMOS, that's just NPOV. However, the words "...was a Soviet operation" is no more POV than stating that Barbarossa was a German campaign. And it did correspond with numerous Soviet defensive campaigns. Moreover, if you look at any of these "Operation" articles, say, the Shyaulyay Offensive, you will discover that they don't aim at describing only the side that was the "first mover" - reactions, counterattacks, etc are there as well (provided the articles are complete). Instead of using threats to have it your way, why not ask for a third opinion? And besides, changing the name won't affect the fact that this was a Soviet attack in any way. --Illythr (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have posted a notice here. Hopefully, someone will notice it soon. :-) In the meantime, feel free to correct my presentation of your position. --Illythr (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perspective
The German bias lies in the fact that the article tells very little about Soviet planning and execution of the strike. Instead it's composed like "The Soviets struck here and here and here's how we reacted..." Check out the Soviet source to see how much is missed out (the facts, not the propaganda). --Illythr (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article indeed lacks the planning of both sides and is therefore balanced. The "here's how we reacted" sounds like an insult to the article in its current form. I hope, you don't mean these words. Otherwise point out the parts telling the story from the German perspective. Perhaps you can also be bold and help with the Soviet planning and execution. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see: Lead - until yesterday presented strategic Soviet goals as tactical (failed to capture Estonia in the battle for Tartu, what losers). Background - German perspective entirely. Combat activities - first para, ok; second para - outcome is only the German reaction. Third para - Soviets initially won just because of a car accident. Sources - Laar, Laar, Laar (11), Hiio, Hiio, Hiio (19!). All in all - not really bad POV-wise, but the perspective shift is pretty visible.
 * I'll try to add some of the Soviet-side stuff once I defeat the WikiSloth in me. --Illythr (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify
I am not sure what this sentence means: "The Army Group North subjected the defence line to a Kampfgruppe led by SS-Brigadeführer Jürgen Wagner and manned by the Army Detachment." Can you please clarify? Thanks Diannaa  TALK 03:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It means that the Army Group created a Kampfgruppe to defend the newly created Tartu front. The personnel was taken from Army Detachment "Narwa" (which also commanded the Kampfgruppe). Wagner was appointed the commander of the Kampfgruppe.
 * BTW, do we have to use the foreign term Kampfgruppe or is there an appropriate term in English? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the term is common enough that we can leave it in, especially if we define it on its first occurrence. I will do that, and clarify the other sentence, too.  Diannaa  TALK 19:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have gone over the article several times and can think of nothing else to improve from a copy-editing point of view. If you are also satisfied, let's nominate for GA.   Diannaa  TALK 19:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and nominated it, as a co-nomination with you. Hope that is ok Diannaa  TALK 19:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC) On second thought it might be improper for me to put your name on it without your permission. You should probably add it yourself   Diannaa  TALK 20:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

contribution from Infantry Regiment 200
According to the article on the Finnish Infantry Regiment 200 (JR200), who made up of Estonians and had participated in the Continuation War against the Soviet Union, "9 out of 10 decided to return [home]. As soon as they landed, the regiment was sent to perform a counter-attack against the Soviet 3rd Baltic Front, which had managed a break-through at the Tartu Offensive and was threatening the capital Tallinn." This Tartu Offensive article does not mention about any participation from the JR 200. -- Cybercavalier (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)