Talk:Continuation War/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

KIA section

Please do not edit it without arguing your case in the talk page, these recent edits replace the sourced values which had actually covered the whole of the article with values from Krivosheyev which do not. Krivosheyev's whole book handles solely separate operations - not the whole duration of the war and as such is not representative enough to be used in this context. And for most of the Continuation War the front saw very limited action (from December 1941 to June 1944).

Krivosheyev's values are not in any way representative of the Soviet casualties of the Continuation War. There are several critical omissions which are obvious if you look at the data both from his approach which concentrates to the specific 'operations' instead of continuous time period as well as due to the oddly selected termination times of the operations. First the 'defensive operation' ends sometime in October 1941, in reality Finnish offensive continued until December 1941. Second, during the 'operation' Soviet reorganized and part of the Finns actually faced new Leningrad Front whose losses are absent. Third, all the losses suffered between October 1941 and June 1944 are omitted, for both Leningrad Front, Karelian Front as well as for the Soviet Baltic Fleet. Fourth, somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the formations actually taking part to the offensive against Finland in summer 1944 are omitted in Krivosheyev's list. Fifth, one whole Soviet army, the 59th Army is omitted from the list. Sixth, Leningrad Front (21st, 23rd and 59th Army) continued the offensive until mid July, it did not end in Karelian Isthmus at 20 June 1944 - instead several major engagements were still fought on Karelian Isthmus by Leningrad Front after that 'deadline', starting from Battle of Tienhaara (sov. 21st Army), Battle of Tali-Ihantala (sov. 21st Army), Battle of Vyborg Bay (1944) (sov. 59th Army) and finally Battle of Vuosalmi (sov. 23rd Army). Until these points can be addressed using Krivosheyev is not what should be done.

Both Manninen and Krivosheyev base their values to the Soviet archives, however Manninen's values actually fit to the scope of the Continuation War unlike Krivosheyev. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OR about N. Beloostrov fighting again

There were long discussions about this already. [1][2]

The tags were removed from the article for the mediation,[3] but the issue is still unresolved. So leave the tags. -YMB29 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

However the matter is already handled in the article. The text sections are separately marked according to their sources. They are even explicitly limited to what the source states. There is nothing in them which would infringe with the OR rule. Just because you do not like them does not make them wrong or unsuitable. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For your information. It is allowable to add the direct (uninterpreted) facts from the primary sources to WP. Which is exactly what was being done with the entries you marked. Again, not OR, not infringing even the use of primary sources. So, remove your tags. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OR and WP:SYN. -YMB29 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And nice try with the synthesis tag. However again you missed the point. As stated by wikipedia policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The entry you marked does nothing of a kind, the reference to Raunio & Kilin was expressly separated from the rest of the statement because of this reason as while it does not mention the fighting it does not expressly state that it would have been quiet, it only noted the location of the unit. The war diary (as stated in the text) denotes that the unit facing the settlement saw the situation as quiet and does not mention the fighting in question. Both are undeniable facts. Valid within the statures of both WP:OR and WP:SYN. So, again, please remove the tags. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So you have one source that states where the unit was located and then another that says that it was quiet for the unit, and from this you then imply that there was no fighting at N. Beloostrov. This obvious synthesis...

Please provide a source that explicitly says that there was no fighting there. If you do, the tags will be removed. -YMB29 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, both sources state that the unit was located was there. I added the Raunio & Kilin there just because they were not a primary source, instead secondary. I suppose i might add there a citation to the war diary in to that entry as well.

And wrong in your statement, neither of the entries claim that. And neither is that any requirement for the entries. You should really read again what the WP:OR and WP:SYN discuss. If I wrote that there then it would be OR or something else. As it stands they do not state that. They only comment on what is known and stated in the sources, nothing else. Since it is relevant to the event discussed at the document they have full validity to stay there. Also you can not find a source which state that something didn't happen. Military documents only record events, not expressly the lack of them. For example prove to me that Finns didn't attack Vladivostok. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

So far you have failed to show any reason as to why any of the tags you added should stay. Could you please show your opinions as to why the tags should be there - in other words what is the problematic section in the marked section of text - but please take into account what has been stated earlier regarding the entries. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have explained this to you countless times. If reliable sources say that something happened you cannot use OR to disprove them. The Finnish sources you provided don't explicitly say that the fighting did not happen; you yourself conclude that. There are no sources that say that the Finns attacked Vladivostok, so that is a bad comparison...

You just refuse to understand the rules. -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no OR. All the notes are as how the reliable sources state they have been. I stated that Finnish war diary of the unit facing the settlement noted no fighting and that it was quiet. I further noted that Finnish chronology of the war makes no references to the event at all. Both are exactly like they were stated in the sources - with primary source even exactly how it was stated. Which does not make them OR at any level. What you stated above is simply false - i provided reliable sources which disagree with the ones you provided, there is nothing OR in that.

For additional information, all Finnish documents do note fighting between N. Beloostrov and Alexandrovska up to and including the small stream at the edge of the N. Beloostrov. If your previous statements were that there was fighting near (or even at the edges of) the N. Beloostrov then there would be no objections from me. But stating that Finns would have captured the settlement simply does not correspond with anything from the Finnish side - hence the issue. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you again just described your OR and synthesis.

This will be discussed at dispute resolution.[4] -YMB29 (talk) 03:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is no synthesis used nor is there OR. All is exactly how the sources stated the issue. Alternatively show precisely where it is so far you have made baseless accusations without explaining what exactly you perceive as wrong. Just because you do not like it does not mean it wouldn't be so. In similar way just because Finnish sources do not agree with Soviet/Russian sources does not make them OR either.- Wanderer602 (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We will see what they say... -YMB29 (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox casualties

I propose adding the following after Soviet civilian casualties - "excluding the victims of the siege of Leningrad" - since they are obviously omitted. Also, is there data about Finnish and German non-combat losses in this conflict - to match the Soviet sick hospitalizations? If not, we should add under the 275 000 - "plus unknown sick". Tvoi Ded (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Kinda lengthy text into the infobox. Can you think of shorter version or would it be better to make it into a note? As for the other part, unless you have information specifically that the non-combat losses are not already included then it can't be added. That is without such information (to either way) the statement is nothing but speculation. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes seem like a better idea. I'll look into the second question. Tvoi Ded (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

When going through some books collecting info from Finnish war deaths from certain parishes, it seems that Finns have included non-combatant KIA to the numbers. Also some non-military, war related losses are included there (e.g. casualties from partisan attacks, mine casualties...) --Whiskey (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Finnish civilian deaths were less than 1500, so they are insignificant to the overall count even if partially (or fully) included into the total. I was helped to this table http://rajajoki.com/afterwar.htm. I speculate that this table is a military report summary, while the number we have in the infobox is the final number. As for the Finnish wounded, I was not able to find a source that claimed that the 158 000 number includes anything but armed forces WIA. So in this area, speculation is assuming that the sick are included among the wounded, not that the wounded and sick are counted separately. I mean, if this number is from a good source, surely the authors knew the difference between "wounded" and "overall hospitalization". As for the German losses, the 10 day reports (available at http://ww2stats.com/cas_ger_okh_tow41.html) do not support the number we have in the infobox. The combat losses (KIA/MIA/WIA) of the German units operation in northern Finland (Norway/Lapland/AOK 20) are 13 926 KIA, 2808 MIA and 53 226 WIA from beginning to sep 20, 1944, and further 2420 KIA, 4036 MIA and 7095 WIA till the end of the Lapland War. The 10-days report compilations, however, cannot be used as a source for watershedding events, as there was significant lag in how the casualties were reported and recorded.Tvoi Ded (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That depends on what information authors have available. Unless there is a source either way - that is stating that the number of sick is or is not included to the wounded statistic - it is speculation regardless. As for the German units operating in northern Finland (Norway/Lapland/AOK 20), their area of responsibility extended to all of Norway. Not being limited just to operations against the Soviet Union. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So basically you claim that the authors of the original number didn't know the difference between WIA and WIA+sick. That is just a speculation; while we do have a source for what I'm claiming. If it says "wounded" than it means just that, unless proven otherwise. Hence the burden of proof is on you, to prove that the wounded include the sick =). Also, you are wrong about Norway/Lapland/AOK 20. There weren't responsible for the entire Norway. Tvoi Ded (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any source supporting your point of view either. They did not discuss the sick at all. As said going either way is speculation. All that can be done is to state 158,000 wounded and nothing more - as adding "wounded and sick" is speculation in the exact same way as is adding "unknown number as sick". Without sources that is.

Do note that the scope of the different formations varies greatly even in the article you referred to. That is German military organization changed in early 1942 quite a bit in Lapland & Norway which is immediately apparent when looking at the site you quoted[5]. That is 1941 'Norway' casualties went to 'Lapland' and 'Geb. AOK 20' instead of going under 'Norway' after Jan 1942 header. It is impossible to determine from the source that the losses would have been suffered solely against the Soviets. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oddly, you're arguing my point - that the sick are not included in the 158 000 number. But surely, there were sick in the Finnish army. I agree that we need a source on the sick to better the infobox.

The names changed, but in essence it was the same deal - two German mountain corps fighting; yes, during the period of June-December 1941 the casualties may (or may not) include the losses suffered by the other corps of Army "Norway", but the difference (1000 dead and 16 000 wounded) cannot be attributable to six months of occupation in actual Norway. Mind you, the source's 70 000 losses (versus 50 000 in the infobox) are from Heer only. I don't suggest using this source alone, however, I believe it's sufficient evidence that the source we currently have in the infobox for German losses has them deflated. Oh, and the German numbers for sure don't include the sick Tvoi Ded (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source stating that sick were or were not included in the number of the Finnish wounded the doing conjecture either way like you have been doing constitutes nothing else than original research. With the current information it is equally wrong (as in OR) to state that sick are included to the number of the wounded. However exactly the same applies to other option since absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of its own - in other it is also OR to state that there were 'unknown number of sick'. With current information and without resorting to original research there is not much else what you can say other than that number of the sick is not known and it may or may not be included in the numbers of the wounded. All this would be most likely best accomplished by using a note, in this articles context it would likely be something like:

{{#tag:ref|Number of the Finnish sick is not known and may have been included to the number of the wounded.|group="Notes"}}

Until some one can provide source with information for resolving that matter that is all that can be done without doing original research. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Every single source I found claims there were 158 000 wounded, not 158 000 sanitary losses. That means that the sick are not included. The note that you propose contradicts the sources that we are using. Your claim that it's speculation both ways is simply illogical. Tvoi Ded (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither is there any support for the deduction (ie. original research) that they wouldn't be included. Regardless of the approach (by stating that they are or are not included in the number of wounded) you are doing deductions unless you actually have sources to clarify the matter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources we currently have support my point, that the 158 000 is wounded only, and since the sick are not mentioned, they are "unknown". So, unless you have a valid source that contradicts my point, your arguments are invalid. Tvoi Ded (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Except your source does not state that they would be separate from the wounded. In other words per WP:V it does not matter if your are right if you can not provide sources to support the statement. So far the only information you have provided is your own deduction from the data which did not mention sick - which is, as being solely your deduction from the source, original research. If you could provide source without violating either or both of WP:V and WP:OR then there would be grounds for the changes like you suggested, as it stands there aren't any. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure it does. Wounded in action means wounded in action, not instances of hospitalization for whatever reason; it doesn't matter that you speculate that the sick might be included in the number - that is not what the source claims. Tvoi Ded (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Show that it states that sick are not included and it is valid. If it doesn't explicitly state so then your statement is nothing but deduction and therefore OR. And as per WP:V it does not matter what you believe to be true if you do not have sources to support it. For that matter i don't really speculate the matter, i just do not know if they are or are not included. And neither do the sources. What i try to do is to a solution which would allow the statement that number of sick are not known to be inserted without violating WP:V or WP:OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

All we are arguing is the interpretation of the source we have. I'm convinced that the people who compiled this data knew the difference between WIA and overall hospitalizations, and thus WIA means just that, while you want more evidence. Frankly, I don't know where to go from here, so I'm going to try to find more sources before toying with the infobox. Tvoi Ded (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"Victory" vs "Partial victory"

I changed the result in the info box from "victory" to "partial victory", only to have it swiftly reverted by User:Jaan, who referred to the talk page. So I looked on the talk page, and even searched the archived threads, without finding any previous discussion about this matter. All I could find was a discussion regarding "Soviet victory" vs "Finnish defensive victory", which has nothing to do with this. The reason I want "partial victory" instead of "victory" in the info box is that A) the war ended through a negotiated armistice and peace treaty and not an unconditional surrender, and B) the aims set out in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before WWII, which was to put Finland under Soviet control (though not necessarily as an SSR), were not achieved. Instead Finland remained not only independent but also outside the Soviet Bloc, with only minimal Soviet influence. And claims made by various Soviet generals and politicians after the war about the Soviet Union not trying to conquer Finland are of little interest, since the Soviets would never publicly admit that they failed to achieve their goals not only once but twice, both in the Winter War and in the Continuation War (or even three times, if we include the defeat of the red forces during the Finnish Civil War). Thomas.W (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well this shows that you know little about the topic.

How well have you read the discussions here and in the archives?

Also, please understand what original research is. -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

How about discussing "Victory vs Partial Victory" instead of discussing me? Thomas.W (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well you have made wild claims about me, so why are you complaining?

What is there to discuss? What you are saying is only your opinion. How about you read the whole article and do some research first. -YMB29 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any wild claims about you, your long edit warring history and extensive block log is publicly available. All I did was to remind you of the consequences of not following the rules. As for the rest I suggest that you look up what "building a consensus" means. Because that's why I started this discussion, to build a consensus for or against "partial victory". Which, BTW, is how WP works. So what are your views on "Victory vs Partial Victory"? And, equally important, why do you hold those views?. Thomas.W (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not about my opinion or yours. It is about what sources say.

Who are you? Are you an admin? You have made serious accusations about me and you wiki stalk me.

Like I said before, you seem to want to start a conflict.

Such behavior is against the rules. You should know that... -YMB29 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Thomas, all you have presented so far is OR. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In what way is the way eastern Europe was divided between Germany and the Soviet Union in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the way the war ended original research? I'm sorry if I intrude on someone's personal space and/or step on someone's toes, but I expected a good answer, and a proper discussion, not just a quick "OR". Thomas.W (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well you need to provide more than just your personal opinion and analysis to have a good discussion. -YMB29 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The "result" discussion is probably the most done-to-death topic on this talk page and has generated many hundreds of kilobytes of text in the past years (the one in archive 11 is the last one I remember). That's why the regulars here are wary (and weary) of yet another 100 KB discussion of same old. --illythr (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox should reflect what article says

Hi user Jaan. I'm glad to discuss whatever you'd like. The infobox should agree with the contents of the article, right? As I carefully read the in many cases tit-for-tat discussion in the article, which has evolved with *lots* of sources, I just don't see *Soviet victory*. If I've missed something, could you please point them out to me. Regards. Paavo273 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC) Hi again, Jaan. There's no intent here to change the core content of the article, or really any content, except to make the infobox *conclusion* or whatever conform to the sources cited and the bulk of the discussion in the actual article itself. If the article is going to change, at some point potentially it might reflect a Soviet victory. But not now. As it is, it's kind of a cart before the horse thing. I can not only not find any consensus, but no agreement whatsoever, in the sources, many of which I've read, nor in the article analysis of those sources. Please point me to them. I've really read this carefully prior to making the change. Regards. Paavo273 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you have not read carefully...

If Finland failed to achieve its main goals for the war and made significant concessions, how can this not be a Soviet victory? -YMB29 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If the Soviet Union failed to achieve its main goals for the war, how can this possibly be a Soviet victory? I tried to discuss the matter on the talk page (see above) but noone was willing to discuss it. And there is no previous consensus on Soviet victory vs a draw, which is what both Paavo273 (talk) and I want. So unless you engage in a discussion, and try to establish a consensus, its just your opinion against our opinion. And our opinion carries as much weight as your opinion does. Thomas.W (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There was already a consensus. If you want to change the result, you need to establish a new one first. -YMB29 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, there wasn't. I have searched the archives without finding any consensus on a Soviet victory vs a draw. Point me to one and I'll believe you, but as it is I see your claims about a consensus as nothing but an attempt to mislead in order to keep a Soviet victory in the infobox. A view that is reinforced by your previous editing restrictions on pages relating to the Soviet Union. Thomas.W (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

See the section above. You have been told that there is consensus. Or did you miss that too...

You still lack knowledge about this topic. It looks like you are only here to annoy me. -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself, you're not important enough for me to bother to annoy you. Having been "told" that there is a consensus is not the same thing as there actually being a consensus. Show me a thorough discussion about the matter, leading to a consensus, and I'll believe you. Until then it's just a claim without merit. Thomas.W (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you don't see what has been pointed out to you, I can't help you...

You had no arguments for your claims. You waited until there was some edit warring and then jumped in...

You are new to this topic, so if you want to change something, you have to be the one to prove your point. -YMB29 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, stop it, I'm not a new inexperienced editor that you can pull off a bluff on. A) You can't help me for the simple reason that there is no consensus, so you have nothing to show. B) I did present arguments. C) You know absolutely nothing about what I know and what I don't know. D) Paavo273 gave a very good reason for his edit, read it. I'm just supporting his view. Thomas.W (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed here. Please learn the rules...

You have been told that the result was discussed to death, and not just by me.

Again, if you want to change the result, you have to establish a new consensus and provide more than just OR. -YMB29 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There you go again. "OR" may be your interpretation, but it's not my interpretation, and my opinion is as good and as valid as yours. And "establish a new consensus" is just BS since there is no consensus that supports "Soviet victory" over "limited Soviet victory" or similar. Or, to put it in other words, there is no consensus that supports your view over mine. Thomas.W (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So a result that was discussed to death and one everyone was happy with until you came along, had no consensus you claim...

Ignoring what other users tell you and calling it BS, won't help you.

If you don't like the result, this is not a reason for you to change it (especially when you have no sources supporting you), see WP:IJDLI. -YMB29 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The only discussion I could find in the archives was a discussion of "Soviet victory" vs "Finnish defensive victory", a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with "Soviet victory" vs "limited Soviet victory". Which means that a consensus regarding the former can not be claimed as being a consensus regarding the latter. Which in turn means that there is no "blanket" consensus regarding "Soviet victory" vs all other alternatives, as you seem to believe. Thomas.W (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You can pretend that there was no previous discussions, but what gives you the right to change a result that everyone was happy with without any discussion?

You have nothing but OR... -YMB29 (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You're repeating that "OR" over and over again like a parrot, which doesn't make it more true. How about pointing me to the (apparently non-existing) consensus you're equally repeatedly referring to instead? Thomas.W (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

For those who have trouble searching: [6][7][8][9]

Well all you are doing is parroting your OR, so I keep on pointing that out... -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

None of them discusses "Soviet victory" vs "partial/limited Soviet victory". Thomas.W (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You read everything? It is obvious that most supported Soviet victory.

So if you could not find a discussion on victory vs. partial victory, you had to start a new discussion to try to establish a new consensus, not edit war... -YMB29 (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thomas W and YMB29, No, I think Thomas W is correct. He in good faith referred to a source and made a reasonable adjustment to the infobox result and was immediately reverted and accused of OR. BTW, it is not WP:OR to use any analysis, only analysis that is not supported by the research you cite. 'May want to take another look at what WP:OR says. If you couldn't analyze at all, Wikipedia could only consist of nothing but source citations. There doesn't seem to be any consensus now or in recent memory going back to prior mediations. So far, my basis for the edit, which I clearly stated, is being ignored. If there's a consensus, what is it about and by or among whom is the consensus? It kind of goes to the meaning of consensus kind of similarly to how *so much* revolves around the meaning of *victory* in the article. It's an aside to the main, but it would seem to beggar rational belief that you can claim *victory* when there's no agreement in the long article full of sources as to what *victory* here even meant, not to mention no agreement over whether it was achieved. Paavo273 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Finland failed to regain its land, paid a large amount to the USSR, had to fight against its ally, and gave in to many other Soviet demands. How does this not mean a victory for the USSR? Try to analyze that...

If you make an analysis of sources, that is OR too. You need to read the rules carefully... -YMB29 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The part of the WP:OR page that I was referring to (second? line) states, "[OR] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." The key words here are "not advanced by the sources." Without analysis of sources, you would have no new article to create. The place for arguing *victory* or anything else about the subject is in the body of the article that the info box is supposed to encapsulate, not here and not in the infobox itself. Paavo273 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If the analysis is "not advanced by the sources", it is not valid.

Where did you get that Finland's large reparations and other serious concessions are a "limited outcome." The whole phrase "limited outcome with significant Finnish concessions" is contradictory... This is why you can't make your own analysis or synthesis. -YMB29 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You should change the result back yourself to Soviet victory, because your change is not supported by the sources cited, which both say Soviet victory. -YMB29 (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It was up about ten seconds ago. It comes and goes. A few minutes ago it wouldn't let me in. Try, and if you can't get to it, let me know. I can quote it here. It's several pages worth, but especially p. 138. Do you have a way for me to access your cite (#1) more than just those four lines? But I think we're both really missing the point. I guess I mainly cited the source just so I didn't get shot down on OR grounds the way Thomas W unfairly did. It feels to me like group of schoolyard bullies when the new guy comes around. In fact neither I nor apparently Thomas W nor probably a whole bunch of other people who watch this article (based on the thousands of hits it gets) are, in many cases, new to WP. The real and only issue for what goes in the info box, the way I see it, is what the body of the article says. Do you agree with that? Paavo273 (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC) If you don't agree, then what is the purpose of the infobox? Paavo273 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So what in the article contradicts a Soviet victory?

The way you both edit does not show that you are experienced users. You can't just stick a source citation to a statement it does not support. -YMB29 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking what is your background regarding scholarly research? I've been a composition and research instructor in a college-preparatory writing program. I'm copying to this page your remarks rel the current edits made to the mediator of your and W602's ongoing mediation.

YMB29 to Lord Roem: ***Begin quote """Hey Lord Roem, can you take a look at the Continuation War article? Paavo273 and user Thomas.W are edit warring to insert a result that has no consensus. new paragraph> This looks like a coordinated effort. new paragraph> Other users who have edited the article for a long time have told them that there is already an established consensus and the result should stay.[40] -YMB29 (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)""" end quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Continuation_War

Maybe Lord Roem could also take a look at this talk page and also

1. give an opinion as to whether anything remotely approaching consensus has happened rel this article in recent memory or probably ever.

2. give an opinion about the role of analysis in using sources, i.e., interpret for you and us what WP:OR says.

3. give an opinion about the purpose of an infobox in a WP article.

4. etcetera Paavo273 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to make accusations and throw *dubious* and *OR* tags at a source you don't like, but not so easy to back them up. The source I cited states pretty much verbatim what I entered. But ****again****, we're arguing about the wrong thing in my opinion. I actually respect the improvements that have come about because of some of your contributions as I noted before (Causa causae est causa casati--The cause of the cause is the cause of the thing caused.) Also, I respect when you correctly cite (and qualify where needed) valid sources, even if I don't agree with them. Regards. Paavo273 (talk)

Ok, so why don't you cite valid sources also?

What source says that it was a "limited outcome with significant Finnish concessions"? This is something you made up. -YMB29 (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the cited Dan Reiter book describes the outcome as limited Soviet victory on page 122. "Result: limited outcome" (=Result: limited result) is meaningless. --illythr (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Which is one of the reasons I suggested "partial Soviet victory" in the section above this. Something noone here was interested in discussing, instead referring to a consensus that apparently doesn't exist. But I would be equally happy with the wording "limited Soviet victory". Thomas.W (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No one was interested in discussing? You offered no sources, only OR... -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So one source says limited victory, but you can't ignore sources that say Soviet victory. -YMB29 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but conversely you can not ignore the source which states otherwise either by the very same logic. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So if you have one source that says limited victory and ten sources that say victory, it should still be limited victory in the infobox? -YMB29 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't really see where i would have said anything like that. All i stated was that following the rule you yourself laid down we can't ignore any of the sources opposing your point of view either. It works both ways. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion thread originally made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Continuation War between 17:41, 1 February 2013 and 01:47, 2 February 2013, copied here by Paavo273 at 08:11, 2 February 2013. Removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

continuing from immediately above the above rfc page copy:

As I've said at least twice before in this post area today, this is not the issue at all, and I'm kind of sorry I even cited the source. What we need to be focusing on in order to choose the right words for the outcome section of the infobox is what the article as a whole says. The infobox is not a separate two-word article or a separate research area from the article. I think the proposed link to the aftermath section or whichever proposed by the mediator, in the Y29/W602 current attempted mediation, is helpful. I can't see *victory* as part of appropriate verbiage of the infobox outcome as the article stands now. I'd be happy to go through the sources with someone one by one and together analyze what they say and come up with some totally other verbiage that includes neither *victory* nor *outcome* based on doing that. A graph or chart of sources might help. *Soviet victory* is not representative of what the sources and their discussion say, and especially not just those two words alone. *Limited*, whatever comes after it, is certainly an improvement over what was there before my edit. Now about where I got those words: page 138 paragraph 1 of the cited source, "[T]he fear of rising costs of fighting pushed Stalin to a limited war outcome with Finland, rather than pursue absolute victory." That quote, incidentally, although it is irrelevant to what should go in the infobox (at least until the source gets incorporated into the article), as I've said repeatedly above, certainly goes to the heart of what victory meant to the Soviets, a hotly contested issue in the article, as you are aware. Y29 keeps saying how can these concessions not add up to *Soviet victory*? That's treating the info box like it was disconnected from the very same issue in the article, which has been much discussed and much contested in the article and is right now being contested in the pending mediation betw. Y29 and W602 assuming it ever takes off. Paavo273 (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A link to the relevant section in the article in place of ANY verbiage in the infobox result is I think the way to go. Otherwise this will go on ad infinitum as it has in the article. And for what result? Paavo273 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Query: If there was consensus and W602 agreed to it (*Soviet victory*), why then is he telling you he absolutely doesn't accept it or agree to it in your *discussion* ongoing in your mediation rfc? Paavo273 (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Paavo273 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC) (reorganize layout of info slightly Paavo273 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC))

The accusation keeps getting made (against, e.g., Wanderer602, Thomas W., me) OR OR OR OR OR...as well as others. That attitude will never solve a problem, since as we all know WP heavily favors, even requires a spirit of civility, collegiality, collaboration, which hopefully leads, alas, to consensus. I would like to point to Thomas W's professional, collegial demeanor and his assuming the best including good faith in others, when he most recently entered this fray about a week ago, until he got torn into like a lamb in a wolf pack, as an example for the rest of us to follow to try work together and arrive at a solution. That is what WP is supposed to be about, not trading accusations and ignoring substantive issues raised. Paavo273 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC) (FtR, I have no connection with user Thomas W and to the best of my knowledge, our WP user paths had never crossed prior to his postings a few days ago. Paavo273 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that you mentioned that you have no connection, when no one was accusing you, I start to have doubts...

Anyway, there are rules here that you have to follow. If you are constantly guilty of OR, I will keep pointing that out.

You can't ignore what sources say and common sense. This war was a Soviet victory. You may not like it, but you just have to accept this.

Also, the mediation is not about this article, so what I said about consensus here is true. -YMB29 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It was also pointed out that there are sources stating that it was merely a 'partial Soviet victory' - due to which per the very same common sense result should not be 'clear' Soviet victory as it had been. You may not like it but that is what is stated in some of the sources (and as per your statement, you need to accept that just as well). - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Quoting YMB29 in the statements I've added letters in front of with my replies indented below each:

A. Now that you mentioned that you have no connection, when no one was accusing you, I start to have doubts.

I thought your terminology in your complaints to your mediator Lord Roehm, ...looks like a coordinated effort and tag team edit warring indicated a your perception of a connection. ??? Apparently, Thomas W thought so too, based on his response. Maybe those words mean something different to you than they do to me.

B. Anyway, there are rules here that you have to follow. If you are constantly guilty of OR, I will keep pointing that out.

Well we sure ought to follow those rules.

Could you please point out with specificity and particularity my OR in my contribution reproduced here (incidentally the only source citation regarding which I have been accused of OR by YMB29 or so far by anyone else):

contributed text: infobox result--limited outcome with significant Finnish concessions

source: "[T]he fear of rising costs of fighting pushed Stalin to a limited war outcome with Finland, rather than pursue absolute victory."

C. You can't ignore what sources say and common sense. This war was a Soviet victory. You may not like it, but you just have to accept this.

Do you have any specific verbiage that you would propose other than *Soviet victory*? I'm not prepared to accept that.

D. Also, the mediation is not about this article, so what I said about consensus here is true. -YMB29

The mediation I'm referring to is at these addresses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Continuation_War and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Continuation_War Is this about a different Continuation War? Finally, if there really is or was a consensus, could you please point me to where it was reduced to writing. Thanks.

Finally, on a lighter note, I wanted to share with users of this talk page an edit I came across today from a new WP user in his second edit--user named I know everything so don't bother--his contribution to the WP Winter War article on 13 Jan. was "The main effect of this war was to show just how insane the finish are like holy sh** balls of steal look at that chart." Paavo273 (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I said Thomas W. took his opportunity when he saw you edit warring, not necessarily that you had prior connection to him.

Besides the result you inserted (source says victory, not outcome), here is a good example of your OR: What ***Soviet victory*** says in essence, in part, is that the Soviets never intended to take over Finland. Yet there is huge evidence, much of it cited in the article & including the political face of Europe for the ensuing 45 years (all of this now covered in some way in the article) that they did intend to conquer Finland as the Soviets in fact did conquer in the WWII era about seventeen other nearby countries and did deport huge numbers of these countries' native peoples from their homelands as is well documented in various well-sourced Wiki articles.[10]

It is not about whether you are personally willing to accept the result, see WP:IJDLI.

The mediation is about the result of the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive, not this whole war, and OR in this article about events in 1941. You need to read carefully to understand what is going on. -YMB29 (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Y29: I said Thomas W. took his opportunity when he saw you edit warring, not necessarily that you had prior connection to him.

P273: Did you use the words "looks like a coordinated effort"? Somebody who signed your user name did.

Y29: Besides the result you inserted (source says victory, not outcome),

P273: "[T]he fear of rising costs of fighting pushed Stalin to a limited war outcome (emphasis is editor's) with Finland, rather than pursue absolute victory." You honestly don't see the word outcome there? So could you please respond and tell me if you still think this is OR, and if so, how specifically. Either explain how it's OR or please remove your OR and dubious tags, which you apparently threw in there right away before even reading the source. In fact up to the moment, you've denied it says what I quoted.Paavo273 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Y29: here is a good example of your OR: What ***Soviet victory*** says in essence, in part, is that the Soviets never intended to take over Finland. Yet there is huge evidence, much of it cited in the article & including the political face of Europe for the ensuing 45 years (all of this now covered in some way in the article) that they did intend to conquer Finland as the Soviets in fact did conquer in the WWII era about seventeen other nearby countries and did deport huge numbers of these countries' native peoples from their homelands as is well documented in various well-sourced Wiki articles.[11]

P273: About the "face of Europe remarks," your second accusation of OR against me, if I stuck those in the article without sourcing or being able to source them, they *would* be OR. However, since the material about the other countries is well known on all pre-1990 maps and already included in the CW article *including* sources, it's a non-issue. It would appear to be a spurious accusation. About the deportations, that is in other articles. No serious historian debates the resettlements as far as I know, although no doubt the particulars are debated; as long as the sources can be and if necessary are cited, it's not OR). Unless it's debatable, it's a non-issue. Do you contend resettlements did not take place? I'm guessing what you were mainly referring to as my OR in the quote of my remarks is the Soviets' takeover of many other countries. It's not OR, first because it's discussed with sources in the article, and secondly, it's well known. If you're going to make an accusation of OR ANY TIME, you need to say exactly what constitutes the OR. Otherwise, it just comes across as bullying, and it derails the discussion of the content on its merits. According to WP:OR, it's only OR if it's not CITABLE, and not cited when citation is requested. Please in future, say exactly what you dispute so the accused editor can have the opportunity to provide the citation. From WP:OR: "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist (emphasis is mine)." Must be CITABLE, not necessarily CITED. Lack of source cite doesn't make it OR. Only if it's not well-known, somebody objects, and still no source is provided.

More to the point, about *Soviet victory*, accurate *deductions* from valid sources certainly are allowed. Deductions are conclusions or other statements that necessarily *must* follow from the premises (as in Venn diagrams--first year logic class). What WP:OR prohibits is analysis *not supported by the sources*. So to apply that to my statement in this talk page that you've quoted about Soviet victory is simple deduction. If it's Soviet victory, then what does Soviet victory mean? Well, it cannot have meant takeover. Because we all agree that didn't happen; at least I hope we all agree about there being no Soviet takeover, not in the 1940s at least. So if they intended to take over Finland, it can't be victory because they *didn't* take over Finland. If they never intended to take over Finland, then at least it leaves open the door to victory. That's all all I was saying, and it's basic deductive logic on the syllogistic level.

Y29: It is not about whether you are personally willing to accept the result, see WP:IJDLI.

P273: Agreed.

Y29: The mediation is about the result of the Vyborg-Petrozavodsk offensive, not this whole war, and OR in this article about events in 1941. You need to read carefully to understand what is going on. -YMB29 (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

P273: In reading the rfc, I find much discussion about and focus on the infobox result. Maybe the mediation was supposed to be about that particular offensive, but now since you and W602 and your mediator Lord Roehm are talking about the infobox result entry, it would seem the mediation has evolved. QUERY: Does the "discussion" in your rfc about the infobox result pertain to the CW infobox or the VPO infobox? If the mediation is about VPO only, don't you think you should have filed for mediation under VPO instead? Paavo273 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I would beg to differ with you about my needing to accept your infobox result verbiage. How are we going to solve this? I think possible acceptable solutions include leaving it blank entirely, having a reference and a link to the aftermath section of the article; coming up with some whole new wording that doesn't include *victory* or *outcome*. I am absolutely open to your proposals. Paavo273 (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You can start to coordinate reverting with someone without knowing the user before...

The source you cited says: The soviets accepted limited victory over Finland...[12]

Again "limited outcome" and "with significant Finnish concessions" is a contradictory statement that you synthesized, which is OR.

You yourself cannot relate whatever the Soviets did in Europe to what their intentions were for Finland. You have to cite a source that makes this connection, otherwise it is OR...

The result for this article came up in the mediation only after you started edit warring.

Anyway, do you agree that if most sources say that it was a limited victory, the result should be limited victory, and if they say just victory, it should be victory? -YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Y29: You can start to coordinate reverting with someone without knowing the user before...

P273: Hi YMB29. Thanks for your reply. How can you coordinate with someone you never have contacted or had communication with? If that's true, then my "coordination" with this other user is less so than your "coordination" with other users Jaan or Illythir. To make accusations, especially to a third party, in this case your mediator, with "unclean hands" is counterproductive. 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Y29: The source you cited says: The soviets accepted limited victory over Finland...[13]

Again "limited outcome" and "with significant Finnish concessions" is a contradictory statement that you synthesized, which is OR.

P273: Since one of my obligations as a WP editor is to assume good faith, I will say your remarks about things like OR and synthesis show a profound "misunderstanding" of the terms. I've explained it above. Could you take a look at it. If you are not willing to accept that on page 138 of the source I cited, it says what I have quoted here twice now, the second time with key words in bold, maybe a third party such as an administrator could do so and give an opinion. You also now show a misunderstanding of synthesis on the most basic level. The words are "limited war outcome"--page 138. I even gave the paragraph number above, I think. Synthesis refers to combining two different sources to come up with a result that neither source by itself would reach. In this case, "significant Finnish concessions" is well-known and appears elsewhere in the article, including on the next line. An administrator needs to clarify this. The point is there's no issue at all of OR or synthesis unless there's a disagreement about whether the information is correct. Paavo273 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Y29: You yourself cannot relate whatever the Soviets did in Europe to what their intentions were for Finland. You have to cite a source that makes this connection, otherwise it is OR...

P273: We've been over this; it's in the article. Read the article. If you want, I'll point out exactly where. But you refuse to see what is there in black and white. You are still refusing to see what my source says after I cited it, gave you the page number a second time, then quoted it verbatim in this talk page twice. Paavo273 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Y29: The result for this article came up in the mediation only after you started edit warring.

P273: I would beg to differ as to who is edit warring. Speaking of which, there's a record of your making allegations and then dropping them and moving on to other complaints when the most recent ones are rebutted. Just regarding me, you

• alleged there was a consensus that I violated. When two users independently noted they couldn't find any evidence of one, and you didn't produce any evidence of one, it went away. If you do bring it up again, please point to it.
• complained of two separate instances of OR. When I illustrated that was not the case, you refuse to acknowledge what the first source says even though I quoted it and gave the page number. About the second allegation, you refuse to acknowledge the paragraph in the article.
• alleged synthesis. now I've pointed out, which you should know, if you're going to use the term, that it applies to two different sources. It doesn't apply to well-known facts discussed in the article, in this case on the very next line in the infobox. Paavo273 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Y29: Anyway, do you agree that if most sources say that it was a limited victory, the result should be limited victory, and if they say just victory, it should be victory? -YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

P273: No, I don't agree that "limited victory" is right for the infobox; the infobox should be a reflection of the what the body of the article says. Nor do I agree that the infobox is a place to cite new research. (See new heading below.) I would agree to something such as "Soviets successfully repelled German invasion and repelled Finnish attempt to retake lands lost in Winter War and took additional territory, but failed to absorb Finland into Soviet empire. See armistice and aftermath." And I would be open to other, shorter results that don't include victory or that better qualify victory than the word *limited* does. Paavo273 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nearly all the time in this dispute has been taken up by your making allegations about rules violations by me and by my refuting them. If necessary, would you agree to getting an administrator to look at this and clarify so we can move on and solve the content issue? I respect your obvious great persistence and capability. Also, your outstanding use of English. In fact, I would say your English proficiency is about as high as any non-native speaker's can be without being indistinguishable from native. (There are only small telltale signs that come up, probably when you're in a hurry, e.g., when you wrote, "I start to have doubts" in reference to a connection you suggested between me and user Thomas W. You probably already know that the simple present tense in English is reserved for what you do routinely or by habit or what you actually sense with one of your five senses in the present moment.) Paavo273 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(Thanks Thomas W. for restoring that request for input. Actually, it wasn't vandalism. I deleted it myself. I decided it might be better to at least TRY get agreement how to proceed before putting it here. Of course if you feel strongly, you can put it back. 'Just wanted to let you know it wasn't vandalism. As I understand it, I'm allowed to edit or delete my own comments as long as no one has responded to them. Regards. Paavo273 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC))

It is simple. You came here to edit war, then Thomas.W saw it and came to support you.

Synthesis is also combining two different statements from one source (If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.[14]). You cannot just combine two separate statements and claim that this best summarizes the war's result, especially when you ignore what other sources say. Your source uses the phrase "limited victory," and the outcome you quoted refers to victory, so why did you decide to use outcome? Outcome means result, so, as Illythr pointed out to you above, "Result: limited result" is just a useless statement... You just wanted to make something up which would sound better for Finland...

You refuse to understand what is OR, so that is why you keep on being guilty of it.

You edit warred and ignored the consensus, which is obvious if any admin will try to look into this issue.

The result should be a Soviet victory. This is supported by the article text (Finland paying reparations and being forced to fight its ally...) and sources that directly state this. -YMB29 (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Quote: "Anyway, do you agree that if most sources say that it was a limited victory, the result should be limited victory, and if they say just victory, it should be victory? (-YMB29)."

It's not that simple. I remember reading a comment here on Talk:Continuation War that claimed that Finnish sources didn't count because they weren't reliable, meaning that they were mostly interested in gloryfying Finland. But the exact same can be said about Soviet/Russian sources, they are also mostly interested in gloryfying the Soviet Union/Russia. So sources must be individually evaluated. If ten Russian sources claim that it was a total victory and two "neutral" sources say that it was a "limited/partial victory", then IMHO the "limited/partial victory" carries more weight. (I should add that I'm totally neutral myself, being neither Finnish nor Russian nor having any other interest in gloryfying either side). Thomas.W (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You have not shown that you are neutral...

Anyway, I am talking about neutral sources. Do you agree then? -YMB29 (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is getting more and more ridiculous. You're very fond of throwing all kinds of allegations around, but it's about time you learn that having an opinion that differs from yours doesn't automatically make it partisan and non-neutral. If anyone here is partisan/non-neutral it's you, something you've proven over and over again on all pages you've been involved in, to such a degree that you've even had editing restrictions on all pages even broadly relating to the Soviet Union levied against you. And now a question: Do you even read what others here write? Thomas.W (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You came here to edit war and ignored consensus, so how can you claim that you are neutral?

Can you answer the question about the sources? -YMB29 (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are really neutral, you should not have trouble accepting what most neutral sources say. -YMB29 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it. The only one who is edit warring here is you, and the consensus that you are constantly referring to doesn't exist. Leading me to the conclusion that you're either simply a bit below par from the neck up or just following the instructions given to you by your handlers, without understanding the discussion that has been going on here. Thomas.W (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You again show that you don't know the rules here, see WP:NPA...

So I am the only one edit warring. Care to look at the history page?

Just because other users refuse to edit war with you, does not mean that there is no consensus.

Are you going to answer my question or not? Would you accept neutral sources? -YMB29 (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can't point directly to or quantify the consensus, the OR, the synthesis, or whatever WP-defined concept you think of, you shouldn't even bring it up. I've noted the allegations you've brought up. In future, *unless* Y29 actually demonstrates an understanding of the rule he cites that I've supposedly violated AND quantifies (in the case of consensus points to where in talk or wherever it was arrived at), I'm going to decline to respond to *those* any longer. They're a humongous waste. It's a case of the-boy-who-cried-wolf, somewhat analogous to a vexatious litigant.

However, I think Y29 poses an excellent question about how can it not be victory for the Soviets with all the concessions. What I propose is we all think of other wars: first find one that matches the facts *and the result* of this one, and what the result was called there. This situation is not very common in the wars I know of in the 20th Century especially, but our analogizing should NOT be limited by time. I'm not a historian, but I thought of one that's pretty similar; I'll look up what WP says about its result. If anyone else likes this idea, Please come up with another war or other wars, and make an analogy/comparison. I hope when I log back on to offer my war, there are at least a dozen other user suggestions. If somebody else likes this idea, maybe we could post it over at the Wikihistory site. We need some fresh approach like Y29 has suggested to break this dead-end and get input from the wider community. Nobody wants to get in the middle of an old couple squabbling about nothing. Paavo273 (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are sources that explicitly call the result of this war a Soviet victory, so we don't need to go looking for similar wars. Since there are such sources, we should go by what they say.

Archived talk has been pointed out to you and Thomas.W many times, but you ignore it...

Also, why are you answering for Thomas.W? -YMB29 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox is to represent what article says; it's not an independent research area.

I'm putting this in a heading to solicit input from any and all readers of this page. I raised it above, but no one responded. What should go in the infobox is not a separate research area and not dependent on specific verbiage in any source or a statistical count of sources. The infobox needs to reflect what the article as a whole says. Please agree or disagree and explain. Paavo273 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So the fact that Finland paid reparations to the Soviets, turned against its ally as demanded by the Soviets, gave up all the land it gained in the beginning of the war and agreed to other territorial concessions to the Soviets (all of this is in the article text), does not mean that the Soviets were victorious? -YMB29 (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually you just stated that the current result is synthesis per the very definition of synthesis. Which means that the Soviet victory that is currently used as a result is invalid according to wikipedia's rules. Exactly according to what you posted above: If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.[15] - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are sources that directly state that it was a Soviet victory. -YMB29 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And it has been shown that there are sources which are not. However that was not the point. Point was that the very basis you made your claim on to was either synthesis or original research. Answering to your question that if certain things meant that Soviets were or were not victorious is already in itself a deduction (i.e. synthesis) and original research as well if the sources do not explicitly state so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What if they explicitly state so? -YMB29 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What if there are (as has been shown) also opposing sources? Are you going to selectively just dismiss them? - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So again, if there are ten sources that explicitly say what the result is and one source disagrees or says something different, what should the result be? -YMB29 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In my case, I'm not synthesizing, analyzing, or concluding anything. I'm only quoting. I'm starting to wonder along the lines of what Thomas W. asked you: Do you actually read anything? Or do you just scan for random words and assign a WP rule violation to them? I quoted the phrase verbatim, leaving out *war* because that's in the title of the article. About the *significant concessions*, if that is supposed to be the second half of what I'm synthesizing (I didn't see that in the source; I just added it from the line below in the infobox as a point of clarification), then we could delete that. If you don't want to talk about the concessions, whatever. But then, I suppose it should be deleted from the article as a whole. Or at least from the infobox.

Could some third party give an opinion here. I'm really convinced that synthesis, which as Y29 correctly states could be drawing a conclusion either from two different sources or from different parts of the same source where the conclusion doesn't follow from either source individually but does follow when you put the two together, requires #1 there actually be a conclusion and #2 that something about the conclusion is disputed. In my case, all I'm doing is quoting LOL. Paavo273 (talk)

About Y29's question, ":So the fact that Finland paid reparations to the Soviets, turned against its ally as demanded by the Soviets, gave up all the land it gained in the beginning of the war and agreed to other territorial concessions to the Soviets (all of this is in the article text), does not mean that the Soviets were victorious?" I think that's an excellent and fair question, and it's something I and a lot of other people who read this page have thought too. Only thing is I'm somewhat hesitant to respond for fear you'll accuse me of OR, synthesis, or something else. If we can agree that you asked for my thoughts and it's only arguendo--not about to go in the article and therefore not OR, I'd like to answer that by way of analogy. Your question has been on my mind a lot, before I decided to jump into this. I *mean* it's an excellent question on its own merits to analogize to other similar wars. *BUT* the infobox result still needs to be based on what the article full of sources says. However, if we could all come up with some other war that had a similar beginning and a similar result and agree how to characterize that other war's result, that could be a good and promising basis to build a consensus for this war's result. Paavo273 (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What in the article text contradicts Soviet victory?

You are writing a lot of words without actually addressing the issues. -YMB29 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Soviet victory

With Soviet victory in the Continuation War and in World War II as a whole, the power structure in Finland's salient environment had radically changed.

External Danger and Democracy: Old Nordic Lessons and New European Challenges, by Mouritzen (pp. 35) [16]

The Continuation War (1941-44) ended in Soviet victory in the autumn of 1944, and this completely changed the situation of the Finnish communist party through recognition of its legal status.

Agents of the Revolution: New Biographical Approaches to the History of International Communism in the Age of Lenin and Stalin, by Morgan, Cohen and Flinn (p. 246) [17]

Then a Soviet victory in the Continuation War between the Soviets and the Finns increased Allied pressures on Sweden to cut off trade with Germany, and postwar economic and security concerns became factors in Swedish decision making.

Scandinavia Since 1500, by Nordstrom (p. 316) [18]

The German invasion of the Soviet Union led to the Continuation War with the USSR from 22 June 1941 until 4 September 1944, overwhelming numbers leading to a Soviet victory.

Aerospace Encyclopedia of World Air Forces, by Willis (p. 175) [19]

This was diminished little when the Finns, in what they described as their " Continuation War," allied themselves with the Germans primarily to resist Soviet occupation forces. Nonetheless, at the war's end, Finland was a defeated nation, forced, in June 1944, to accept a harsh armistice imposed by the victorious Soviet Union.

The Romance of History: Essays in Honor of Lawrence S. Kaplan, by Kaplan, Bills and Smith (p. 197) [20]

The Paris Peace Treaty, signed in 1947, obliged the Finns to pay war reparations of $300 million and to cede to the victorious Soviets the Karelian Isthmus, with Viipuri and other border territories.

One Europe, Many Nations: A Historical Dictionary of European National Groups, by Minahan (p. 249) [21]

In June 1944, Finland was a defeated nation, compelled by the victorious Soviets to accept a harsh armistice.

Charting an Independent Course: Finland's Place in the Cold War, by Ruddy (p. 172) [22]

Finland fought alongside Germany in the war against the Soviet Union and provided Germany with vital raw materials, particularly nickel, but in September 1944 Finland surrendered to the Russians.

Hitler, Dönitz, and the Baltic Sea: the Third Reich's last hope, 1944-1945, by Grier (p xix) [23]

In the meantime they had, however, lost most of the sympathy of Great Britain and the United States, and they found it ever more difficult to maintain the fiction of a separate war, or to live with the fact that Finland had sided with a Nazi power with which it was not in ideological, moral or political agreement. Surrender to the Soviet Union came in late September 1944, but was preceded by a British declaration of war against Finland and almost three years of hostilities between these two countries.

Churchill and Finland: A Study in Anticommunism and Geopolitics, by Ruotsila (p. 101) [24]

In June the United States broke of relations with Finland but still did not declare war. Finally, on Sept. 2, 1944, Finland surrendered to Soviet forces sweeping eastward. In a peace treaty signed seventeen days later, Finland agreed to give up once more to the Soviet Union essentially what it had yielded up in 1940. On March 3, 1945, Finland declared war on Germany.

World War II: The Encyclopedia of the War Years 1941-1945, by Polmar and Allen (p. 293) [25]

Finland surrendered in 1944, and was forced to push out all remaining (former cobelligerent) German forces, which resulted in the German destruction and disruption of a good part of Finnish Lapland, the payment of reparations, further territorial concessions including the city of Viipuri (Vyborg), and a Soviet naval base on the southern coast.

Defense & Foreign Affairs Handbook, by Copley (p. 348) [26]

Discussion

So the sources say that it was a Soviet victory or Finnish surrender, which is the same as Soviet victory.... -YMB29 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it. We're not discussing whether it was Soviet victory or not, we're discussing "Soviet victory" vs "limited/partial Soviet victory", that is whether it was a total Soviet victory or just a limited one. And all historical evidence shows that it was a limited victory, since it resulted in a negotiated armistice, not unconditional surrender. So your hours of scouring the Internet for quotes to support the theory of "Soviet victory" is a total waste of time. Which you would have known if you had bothered to read what others here write. (PS. I removed excessive empty lines from your post to make it more readable). Thomas.W (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well again you show a lack of understanding of the issues.

Victory does not mean unconditional surrender. I guess the US surrendered unconditionally in the Vietnam War...

It is not about whether you think the victory is limited or not; it is about what the sources say it is. -YMB29 (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am going to change the result back. The support for it in sources is clear and there was no reason to change it without any discussion after it has been there for over 3 years. If anyone finds something new, we can discuss that, but only make changes when there is a new consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm really glad Y9 cited these new sources. It really shows just how extreme his/her view is. For my small part in this discussion and in the article, I would agree to *Finnish surrender* (but not *Soviet victory* or *limited Soviet victory*) providing you put a bold heading in at least 24 point type at the top and bottom of the text of the article that says "This is the Soviet Stalinist revisionist history of the war and does not include the mainstream Western view." It's one of the features of propaganda that the propagators of it often miscalculate its effect. This is especially exacerbated when the government of a country like the USSR or Putinist Russia today is isolated from mainstream Western thought. Then, if we have infobox result *Finnish surrender*, I can help you rewrite the article to that point of view. I may even have somewhere a Kremlin-backed pamphlet on the event that you could use, if there was on in the stack I got when I visited the USSR as a young man. I've been watching this revisionist history take place with Stalinist/current Kremlin views leaking into these various articles. I think it's disturbing and may expose a flaw in Wikipedia editing rules. While I'm on that subject, can anyone tell me if there's a penalty for an editor who makes repeated false claims of WP rules violations?

A couple other points: Some of Y9's new sources discredit themselves beyond just stating extreme, discredited views:

Y9-cited source: on Sept. 2, 1944, Finland surrendered to Soviet forces sweeping eastward.

Pvo: In order for that to have occurred, they would have had to invade from Sweden or the Gulf of Bothnia, and I don't think that is contained in any credible record.

Y9-cited source: Finland agreed to give up once more to the Soviet Union essentially what it had yielded up in 1940.

Pvo: it is well-established that Finland gave up much more than what it had given up in the WW. Paavo273 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Posting originally made at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Continuation War at 18:08, 5 February, copied here by Paavo273 at 20:48, 6 February 2013. Removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

Another longish thread originally made at Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive betwen 22:14, 2 December 2012 and 14:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC), copied here by Paavo273 at 20:48, 6 February 2013. Removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC).

If there's ever going to resolve this, there needs to be some agreement on how to proceed. It's probably not gonna' work to keep throwing out "the sources say Soviet victory* as if saying it enough times will make people agree to it. Or now Finnish surrender. I don't think that's a credible view; I mean it's even less credible for a NPOV article than Soviet victory. Paavo273 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You are getting desperate...

Your personal opinion and analysis of why the sources are bad ("Soviet Stalinist revisionist history"...) don't mean anything here.

You provided no sources or arguments to why the result you made up and edit warred to insert should stay. -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Stuff got mixed up when YMB29 wholesale deleted 10,000+ bites of material I added. Please don't do that. Anybody, including YMB29, feel free to add stuff back if something is still missing, but don't wholesale delete prior to conferring. Any discussion on point, including by the most prolific editor(s) of this article is veyr relevent, even if it appears originally on another site. Paavo273 (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Y9: Your personal opinion and analysis of why the sources are bad ("Soviet Stalinist revisionist history"...) don't mean anything here.

Pvo: My *opinion* per se may not matter. But the *fact* of the origin of the source and the POV of the source and the contributing editor matters a whole bunch. It's why mere *numbers* of sources aren't definitive. It's the credibility of the sources. Paavo273 (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Y9: You provided no sources or arguments to why the result you made up and edit warred to insert should stay. -YMB29 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Pvo: The quote is there, page 138 of the source cited. If you're looking online, you may need to use your scroll bar. A web page and the page of a book are different. I provided many reasons and restated them at least once or twice when you insisted I had not. These denials by you suggests that what I and another user proposed is right--that you don't really read what we write here. Paavo273 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone, including YMB29 have an idea of a *process* how to go about finding a solution? Every suggestion I've made has been shot down. Mediation is obviously no panacea as has been shown by the current med. and former ones. If we are going there, we ought to try to agree on some things, so the mediator doesn't just watch a war of words. Paavo273 (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This talk page has become total chaos, and a total joke

As the heading says. Copyedits moving text from one place to another, text being deleted by people who didn't originally write it, doubtful attributions to bits of text, massive loads of text, much of which has nothing to do with the discussion, and so on. Leading me to believe that someone is deliberately trying to sabotage the consensus discussion regarding what the infobox should say about the outcome of the war. And I'm not referring to Paavo273 or myself. So could a previously not involved administrator please take a look at this mess? Thomas.W (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You are not referring to Paavo273?? He is the one responsible for the mess...

He has no way of answering, so he spams useless text from other talk pages. -YMB29 (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't en masse delete a bunch of relevant text talking in part precisely about this issue of infobox result for the CW article. I'm sorry it got screwed up when I tried to add it back. I would have agreed to move the start of the new discussion all down below your remarks copied from rfc and Whiskey's and Jaan's and others' remarks copied from VPO talk. Paavo273 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There was no reason to clutter this page with text from other talk pages, especially when the text is about the infobox result in another article. -YMB29 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How about let's focus on finding a solution or at least how to go about reaching one?

How about we try to find a solution or at least a means to one? Paavo273 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If we're ever going to resolve this, there needs to be some agreement on how to proceed. It's probably not gonna' work to keep throwing out "the sources say Soviet victory* as if saying it enough times will make people agree to it. Or now Finnish surrender. I don't think that's a credible view; I mean it's even less credible for a NPOV article than Soviet victory. Paavo273 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC) ('Moved & fixed my own text that so far hadn't been responded to.)

Again, see WP:IJDLI. -YMB29 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, constantly moving and fragmenting comments, as well as inserting long text from other talk pages, does not help the discussion... -YMB29 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Fragmented *once.* Most editors don't mind if it helps others to follow discussion. You objected; I stopped. Inserted other user comments related exactly to this subject. Maybe you didn't like the discussion there, e.g, call for the result *stalemate*. You can't seem to refrain from edit-warring, even on the talk page. Paavo273 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The only one edit warring here is you.

Again, the discussion you copy-pasted is not about the result of the war.

You are just making this talk page less readable. -YMB29 (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

[Thread title moved down]

Please do not revert infobox result until there is consensus both about content and *process*, and do not place nonsensical tags not based in reality. "Consensus of sources" is not an approved WP vehicle for unilateral content edits of disputed content, even if the sources were not completely bizarre and outside the mainstream, even outside the conventional Soviet line of thinking

YMB29 has engaged in a systematic program of "disruption" without apparently actually reading the remarks on this page. He/She has further made a lot of accusations not based in fact, including repeated accusations that my entry was WP:0R despite the fact that it was a direct quote of the source I cited. If you want to write a Soviet version of history on the web, why don't you start your own online encyclopaedia and call it what it is. I think it is one of the most extreme examples of *situational irony* that I have come across when one of the great free resources on the Internet (supported and created almost entirely by volunteers) has been *Sovietized* to the extent that WP becomes a major vehicle of Soviet Communist propaganda, one of the most repressive governing schemes of the last two-hundred years.' I recognize that the editing rules favoring compromise make the articles susceptible to influence by anyone with the force of will to see his/her position through. Unfortunately, in my opinion it ultimately hurts the resource that contains it rather than being a meaningful record of what took place some 65-68 years ago.

As far as the latest round of YMB29-produced sources now alleging a *Finnish surrender*, as I said before, that shows just how out of touch with mainstream thought the contributing editor is. There *are* a few sources in the article that point to *Soviet victory* (and a whole bunch that do not) but then to make the leap from there to Finnish surrender and say the two are equivalent as YMB29 asserts, *is* finally an example of WP:OR, which YMB29 has been accusing other editors of without merit. Paavo273 (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me one big error is the infobox argument is generating major new research by YMB29. Is that proper? Or should the infobox be a representation of the article?

A quote from the WP:IJDLI YMB29 refers to that he/she maybe should take a look at himself/herself:

"This is intended to be an encyclopaedia, a reference work. To decide what should be in it purely on the basis of what is merely popular or interesting to whatever small group of editors happens to be around at the time that a discussion is had, is to head down the road towards chaos and confusion. Wikipedia's editing community comprises a broad spectrum of people from around the world, and what is uninteresting and dislikable to some is of vital interest to others. It is neither productive nor desired to have multiple groups of editors trying to out-"vote" one another, treating editorial decisions on content and topics as popularity contests."

Query: Does YMB29 believe the Soviet point of view is the only one of interest around the world? I don't think anyone is objecting to including Soviet historians' perspectives. What is objectionable here, I think, to many non-Soviets and non-Soviet apologists, is ignoring what an article says, and doing some one-sided research to come up with a Soviet interpretation/result for the infobox that does not follow from the article. In the case of the Sovietization of these articles, what is offensive to those who don't share the Soviet position is that non-Soviet views and sources are marginalized and ignored, due to the persistence of a very small number of pro-Soviet editors.

I think this disproportionate Sovietization of articles is especially offensive to the millions of ethnic peoples, many of whom probably read WP, whose parents and grandparents lived their whole lives in the Communist system or its close orbit. The reality is, not my OR or just opinion, that the USSR swallowing up a bunch of countries surrounding it *is* covered in the CW article.

I have tried to get YMB29 to agree to go through the various sources actually cited in the article, but he/she insists on treating the infobox as separate and discreet. Apparently there is some prize or benefit to whoever can call the result the way he/she wants to irrespective of what the article says.

YMB29: Please see WP:OWN. User Thomas W. pointed this out to you several days ago that no one owns WP articles. The consensus, which you obviously do not have, is supposed to occur through collaboration among users, not as a unilateral move based on a so-called "consensus of sources," even if they were within the mainstream. WP is not a one-man show. Paavo273 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So from OR you go to conspiracies...

I hope you checked out WP:OWN yourself. If you did, you would understand that you can't revert any sourced information that you don't like as if this is your personal article...

All you are doing is throwing wild accusations and making disruptive edits to this talk page. -YMB29 (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

OR from me?-not... --- conspiracy-maybe... --- illegitimate Sovietization of WP-unequivocally yes Paavo273 (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking...

I suggest "Armistice" to describe the result. That's

1. factual and
2. pleases no one.

We can then archive everything above to avoid further embarrassment and return to improving the article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I would also accept "negotiated peace." It's a complicated bit of history which defies easy categorization and deferring to a description of the armistice agreement neatly skirts the problem. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Korean War uses a similar format as well, so there is precedence. Might want to have bullet points such as "1. Finnish independence retained 2. USSR gains Petsamo and regains Karelia and other concessions. 3. Lapland war" if we wanted to include the most salient points. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the result cannot be just "Armistice" like it was a stalemate...

This is like saying that the WWI article should have just "Armistice" in the result. Finland failed to accomplish all of its goals for the war, paid huge reparations, gave up territory, turned on its ally, and was forced to jail its president among other things.

The consensus was Soviet victory before Paavo273 and Thomas.W started edit warring here.

Sources directly say that it was a Soviet victory.[27]. This cannot be ignored. -YMB29 (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, there is no evidence that Finnish independence was threatened.

And in the Korean War, no side paid reparations or made any concessions. -YMB29 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the soviet peace offer in June was only unconditional surrender, whereas the actual September peace was rather different. So yes, Finnish independence was rather threatened and to state otherwise seems a bit disingenuous. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the peace offer in June was not for unconditional surrender. This has been discussed to death, see this RfC[28] for example. -YMB29 (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quote YMB29: "Sources directly say that it was a Soviet victory". Correction: The few sources that you have filtered out and chosen to show might say that, but claiming that "sources say that" and so on, without telling the readers of this section of the talk page that the list you're linking to was compiled by you, based on what you want the sources to say, is a deliberate attempt to mislead readers. Thomas.W (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• These are only the sources that explicitly say that the Soviets were victorious or Finland surrendered.

How am I being misleading? Everyone can see my signature in the section...

You think that I filtered these sources from those that say Finland won or did not lose the war?

Edits to Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say. Complaining about sources that prove you wrong is not the way to go. "I don't like it" is not an argument... -YMB29 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Colleagues, that is ridiculous. The source in the infobox says (p 138) that the Soviets decided to accept limited outcome and not to push absolute victory. The reason was that the USSR had to focus on Germany. That was a choice of the USSR to either fight until full annihilation of Finland (similar to what it did in Germany) or to limit itself with just a victory (non-absolute victory is still a victory, moreover, most wars end not with total destruction of an opponent, but with an armistice with subsequent concessions). That is what the source says, and to try to say the opposite is simply ridiculous.
Regarding Vecrumba's proposal, that is nonsense. All (or almost all) wars end with armistice or peace treaties. Playing Captain Obvious with the only goal to conceal the truth (namely, that the USSR won) is hardly acceptable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, territorial concessions and reparations are typical traits of defeat...--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly. It doesn't use the word *accept*. What it says verbatim (YMB29 to this moment has not acknowledged it appears there at all) is "[T]he fear of rising costs of fighting pushed Stalin to a limited war outcome with Finland, rather than pursue absolute victory." IWSTM that *accept* (your word) and *pursue* (what the source says) are not exactly compatible. Paavo273 (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, but it is obvious that under "limited results" the author means an outcome that is less than an absolute victory. You must agree that absolute victories were relatively rare in history. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is not so. It is not stated anywhere which means that your deduction that it would mean 'less than an absolute victory' is your original research (or just your personal opinion). - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In the immediate military context you are correct, but in the long term view, looking at the countries that wound up on the other side of the Iron Curtain, it looks a helluva lot like a victory for Finland. That's why it's not so simple as a "Russian victory." I have access to bunch of excellent offline sources that I don't have immediately handy that I'll try to bring into the discussion when I get a chance (may be a few months for some of them...). Sailsbystars (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the same argument can be applied to, e.g. the USSR as whole. Yes, today Germany is united, and the USSR disappeared, but does it means that Soviet victory over Germany in 1945 was not absolute?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair point.... perhaps it would be just better to list the major outcomes w/o "armisitice" or "victory" or "partial victory" and let those items speak for themselves? I note that the Winter War article follows the prescription of using the treaty as the result of the war.... Sailsbystars (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think at one brief moment there were two links to the subsequent outcomes. Neither Finland nor the USSR got what they wanted out of their WWII military conflict. Stalin couldn't wipe out the Courland pocket, there's no reason to believe he could have wiped out Finland if he wanted to--that is, no Red wave sweeping across Finland. And the only reason Stalin even got as much as he did at the armistice is because Britain stabbed Finland in the back, but that's a whole other story.

"Armistice" continues to be the best alternative to put this to bed. If the article continues to develop, we can always revisit since we seem to do that regularly, anyway. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

Wiping out the Courland Pocket (a pocket of armed POWs) or Finland had little strategic value...

What did the USSR want from WWII according to you, take over the world?

Finland surrendered (conditionally) and that is all that is needed to determine the result. -YMB29 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Armistice just happens to be more accurate term to describe the Moscow Armistice. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Which happened after the surrender... -YMB29 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it happened after ceasefire. Which is not a surrender. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ceasefire happened after Finland accepted Soviet demands, which is surrendering conditionally. Multiple sources say this, not just me... -YMB29 (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Steering the sidetracked discussion back to the main line: "Soviet victory" or "limited/partial Soviet victory"

• Before everyone here gets sidetracked I want to point out that the discussion here hasn't been about whether the Continuation War ended in a Soviet victory or not, since that is pretty obvious, but whether it was a total victory or a limited victory, that is whether the infobox should say "Soviet victory" or "limited/partial Soviet victory". Something that more or less got lost in the mass of mostly irrelevant text in the sections above. Thomas.W (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The normal wording is "Decisive victory", "Victory", "Tactical victory". Regarding "limited" victory, almost every victory had their own limits. That depends of the goal the USSR pursued. Actually, the USSR got what it wanted: a non-aligned and friendly Finland, reparations, territorial concession, naval bases (even more than it wanted in 1939). Did Stalin really wanted to conquer Finland? Who knows... The most plausible explanation is that he decided (correctly) that the costs were non-commensurate with the goal...--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the opinion of the three fresh contributors and anyone else: Should the infobox result reflect the sources in the actual article? If so, I'd like to do a collaborative analysis of them. Paavo273 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you disagreeing with my analysis?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And what about the Sovietization of WP Soviet-related articles? Why is it not enough that the Soviet view be presented as an alternative to other views? Why do these scores or hundreds of articles have to reflect Soviet/Kremlin policy? Is the answer that given the limitations of WP editing policy, *because they can--given the persistence of a number of authors*? Paavo273 (talk 22:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you. We don't know such concepts as "Sovetisation", we use "neutrality", "verifiability" and "no original research" instead. So far, this edit poorly reflects even the western source you use. Don't take phrases out of context if you want you to be treated seriously.

And, please, self-revert. You may be sanctioned for your edit warring.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am disagreeing. You jumped in after a long absence and immediately reverted. How does that make me the guilty party? I thought it was clear in my last comment on point that I disagree and the grounds for the disagreement. What about the result being a reflection of the existing article versus based on new research just for the infobox? It seems that I am taken seriously by a certain segment of WP editors and not taken seriously by some other. Paavo273 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

People can agree to disagree, and should try to come to consensus or at least compromise based on the merits. But throwing unwarranted accusations out solves nothing. I made the point that the source said something different from what you paraphrased two different times. I'm not making any accusation of it being intentional, just that it was different in words and meaning from what was actually said. From the very outset I have maintained that citing sources in the infobox is not material to the result. What should matter is what the sources in the article say. I think a certain segment of the editing community have been used to getting their way for so long (and at this point I certainly do *not* mean Paul Siebert) that there is only a need to throw around alleged WP rules violations and never actually try to work with other opposing editors. Paavo273 (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There has to be some basis to agree on for solving this. Otherwise it devolves into what you see in mediations on these subjects. The editors just continue trading accusations there. Unless, the nature of the WP-editing system, for all its strengths, actually encourages this kind of behavior. Am I correct in understanding that at least the official policy of WP is administrators will not take a position on content on any matter whatsoever? Paavo273 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree, please, discuss that on the talk page. Do not edit war (I think any uninvolved admin already has a reason to block for your violations). In addition, you clearly took the words out of context, the source does speak about Soviet victory, although non-absolute, so just "Soviet victory", the stable version's wording, is a quite adequate description. Again, stop that, please, self-revert, and join a normal dispute resolution process. I see no need in mediation so far, RfC is the first step. However, before you start, I expect you to restore the changes I did.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Who are the "we" in we don't know concepts such as Sovetisation (Sovietization)? I am finding a growing list of editors with connections or interests to the former Soviet republics who know this concept and also have experienced what has been happening with this article for at least about seven years up to the present. Also, are you an administrator? Paavo273 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, Paul Siebert is not an administrator [29]. But his refusal to answer your question and his repeated threats of sanctions against you is at least bordering on him posing as an administrator. Thomas.W (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"We" means "we the Wikipedians". And, please, don't discuss contributors, stay focused on their arguments and contributions. It is absolutely irrelevant why I (or you) are, the only thing that matter if the content policy is being observed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to at least discuss the source. I think that is a misinterpretation. If we are to rely on new, extra-article sources (Mine, incidentally has been incorporated into the article), we can rely on the words themselves. To try to interpet them separately lends itself to claims of OR. Paavo273 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but taking the words out of context is equally unacceptable. You must adequately summarise what the author says, not to take his single phrase in such a way that the overall idea appears to be distorted.

I am still waiting for your self-revert. Please, do that. I am serious.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I genuinely appreciate your input, but I don't appreciate condescension (or threats). Unless the user is an admin. Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul Siebert: "You must adequately summarise what the author says, not to take his single phrase in such a way that the overall idea appears to be distorted."

Pvo: This seems like mumbo jumbo to me. There is plenty of context; this issue is not terribly complicated. But I still think we're arguing about the wrong thing. It seems to me that the objection is I don't use "victory" because the the source includes the words victory. Is that right? Limited outcome is kind of a middle ground, and there are lots of others. I still maintain we should dig into the sources in the article and see what kind of a infobox result they would reflect. Paavo273 (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just re-read the page 138, the paragraph starting with "As forecasts..." Clearly, Stalin decided not to push for total (absolute) victory for the reasons that were only partially associated with the Finns. We will continue this discussion here after your self-revert. If not, the discussion will continue elsewhere.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Because the rules do not allow other modifier"

Well, if we can't do limited victory, once again, armistice seems the better single-word solution than (Soviet) victory. However, to the infobox and rules:

1. the result parameter is optional
2. if standard terms such as victory, decisive victory, inconclusive, or in fact any other reasonable standard terminology used in sources are insufficient, one can point to explanatory articles, meaning, we can not argue about terminology at all, it being superfluous and just leave the current
   1. Moscow Armistice
   2. Lapland War

After all, technically, Finland didn't even surrender to the USSR.

The practice of citing simplistic source clips matching the requested search (if you look for "Soviet victory" you will find "Soviet victory") with no further context available (unless one buys and reads the source, perish the thought) leads to poor content and arguments which reflect personal POVs. Really, in one, mention of victory is merely a modifying phrase. That's no better than arguing the Baltic states surrendered their sovereignty to the USSR because some sentence in a book leads off with "After the Baltics became part of the USSR,..." — and we've had plenty of those arguments, as fruitless as the arguments going on here.

@Paul Siebert, you invoke "rules" but the rules do not support your editorial position. Please do stop insisting at every turn that "rules" are on your side. Someone else might mistake that for Wiki-lawyering. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So are you going to challenge the fact that WWII was an allied victory too?

The Soviet victory in this war is obvious. Finland did surrender (conditionally) to the USSR, check the sources above.[30]

Only one source says limited victory and the author only uses the term in relation to absolute victory (unconditional surrender or occupation). Limited victory in the infobox sounds as ridiculous as absolute victory... -YMB29 (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Conditional Finnish surrender" would not be unreasonable.

What about just the pointers to Moscow Armistice and Lapland War? If there's nothing else there, then we have nothing to argue about.

And I have to mention I personally find it odd that editors (Paul Siebert) who eloquently argue for nuances on other topics advocate for "modifiers prohibited" narrative here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I rather like "Negotiated peace." Most texts discussing this part of WWII Finnish history speak of neogiations and the armistice, not of surrender per se. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Finland accepted Soviet demands, so it was not just a negotiated peace.

There is really no reason to change anything. Only a couple of editors tried to dispute the result. -YMB29 (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 February 2013

Can the result be changed to the one that had consensus and was in the article for over 3 years (Soviet victory instead of limited outcome with significant Finnish concessions)?
The problems started when it was reverted[31] without any attempt to first establish a new consensus on the talk page.
I am not trying to force the result that I want. I just think the previous consensus should be respected.
If an admin makes the change, it will send a message that changes to the result have to be made only after a new consensus is reached on the talk page. YMB29 (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What else would it be after you have stated that you consider only 'Soviet victory' to be valid for the result entry? Far more neutral would be to erase the result entry altogether until consensus on it can be achieved since the result entry is optional. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It is the result that had consensus. If you want the result to be blanked, we can discuss that later. -YMB29 (talk) 06:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

What benefit would that have after you have repeatedly stated that you won't consider other results that 'Soviet victory'? Which in turn means that if there exists opposing views then there can not exists consensus on the matter. Also, just a note that i did disagree with the existing result as can be seen from talk page archives - which in turn means that the earlier result was not based on consensus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That result was there for over 3 years (not counting the occasional reverts by random IP users and socks)... You may not have been happy with it, but you accepted that it was the consensus and did not edit war. -YMB29 (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, i didn't accept it as a consensus. I merely did not want to edit war. It has nothing to do with 'accepting the consensus'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well you may not have liked it, but you respected it. -YMB29 (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That does not mean that there would have been a consensus over the existing result however. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Archived talk shows otherwise. Also, see recent comments by other users who have been here for a long time[32][33]. -YMB29 (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to check the archived talk again, there are several segments where changes the result, especially after the undiscussed change to 'Soviet victory' took place, have been discussed without reaching a consensus. As said lack of edit warring is not a sign of consensus. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Colleagues, that is ridiculous. The two sources used in the infobox do not support the current wording. Mouritzen says (p. 35)

"With Soviet victory in the Continuation war and in World War II as whole, the power structure in Finland..."

The analysis of Reiter has been presented above: he clearly says the Soviets decided not to push to an absolute victory mostly for the reasons that had no relation to Finnish resistance: the need to move to Berlin, and because the total military occupation of Finland was impractical.
Therefore, I see no reasonable evidence that could force us to change the stable version, which, in my opinion, must be restored for a very simple reason: the current version simply violates our core content policy: it directly contradicts to the sources used in the article. However, if you disagree, let's start an RfC or address to MilHist portal. However, all of that can be done only after the violation if the policy will be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the part about Reiter or more precisely the so called analysis of it is nothing but your original research on the topic - or synthesis if you insist on using other sources to back up that claim. By definitions of the terms - which makes your 'analysis' invalid as far as the wikipedia is concerned. So i can't see any reasons to exclude Reiter from the result. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin comment: Since there seems to be little hope of the present disputants reaching a rational agreement among themselves, I'm going to take the unusual step and solve this by way of unilateral administrative intervention. I am seeing one side in this debate working on the basis of a large number of apparently reliable sources, and the other side in this debate having offered virtually nothing to counter it, except an unending display of "we don't like it that way" and "didn't hear that". This is a WP:SOUP tactic, and it is disruptive. I am now calling a "consensus" here on the basis of policy-based strength of argument: yes, based on the literature cited so far, and until any demonstration of a different viewpoint of equal weight in reliable sources, it is evident that "Soviet victory" is a fair summary of what historians consider the outcome of this war to be. So I'm going to restore that line now, and warn editors not to continue disputing it without providing valid sources of comparable weight. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to concur for now.... finally dug out one of my sources which says "By 1943 most Finns considered that they were on the losing side of the war....." Singleton, Fred (1998). A Short History of Finland. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. I have a few more sources to poke, but I won't have access to them for a few months. Until that time (or the time someone else actually find some) we go with the sources we have, not the sources we wish we had.... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fut.Perf., that makes sense. -YMB29 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• A decision which in no way answers the most important question that has been raised here, that is whether the "outcome" in the infobox should reflect the text and sources in the article or is a separate entity, with sources all of its own. It is also based on the discussion on the "sidetrack", that is "Soviet victory" vs something totally different, and not the original discussion, that is whether it was a limited victory or a full/total victory. Because AFAIK no one here has argued that it wasn't a Soviet victory, only that it wasn't a total victory. Which may seem like nitpicking, but isn't nitpicking what most historical research is all about? Thomas.W (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I did find a good secondary source espousing exactly the view I outlined above, explicitly identifying it as the Finnish view of the conflict. "The second major theme of Finnish war memory is victory. According to the Finns national narrative, they did not lose the war, although they were on the side of losers and had to cede territory. Rather, the outcome was a successful defense, in that the Finnish troops were able to frustrate the strategic aims of the Red Army to conquer and occupy the territory of Finland" [34] p.155 So the other side to the story does exist... but the question is how much weight it deserves, and a more thorough survey of the sources is necessary to make that determination, and since there is no deadline, we should take time to compile sources and evaluate them and not continue the pointless arguing that occupies much of this page. The current weight of sources lends itself to the current wording. PS Thanks to FP@S for cleaning up the talk page mess. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks, Sailsbystars. Unfortunately, the border between "digging sources" and cherry-picking is thin, so it is always useful to try to look first what mainstream views are. To do that, try the following:

1. Open google scholar and type a neutral and general set of keywords. I did this. You may type something different (just as a control). The search phrase should not contain a potential for any bias. Thus "World war" AND "Finland" AND "Soviet" AND "hostilities" is good, but "Continuation war" AND "Finnish defensive victory" is not.
2. Look thorugh first 30-40 sources.
3. Select fresh sources published in peer-reviewed journals or top university books; the sources that have been widely cited are preferrable.
4. Read these sources carefully. Do not select them. The summary you will make is likely to be close to the mainstream view on the subject.

Below is an example of my analysis. I limited myself with just few sources, which is incorrect. I did that just because of the lack of time, and I would be grateful is you continued that after me.

1. WR Trotter. The book is about the Winter war, however, it contains an analysis of Stalin's intents (p. 17). The author compares Stalin's strategy in 1939 and 1944 and concludes that Stalin's intents were probably not to occuly Finland as whole. The author concludes that the USSR had both a legitimate reason and a physical opportunity to overrun Finland "with comparative ease" in 1944, but he decided not to do that. I think author's opinion on the ContWar's outcome is clear: "Soviet victory"
2. (Skip Spring, he does not discuss ContWar)
3. (Skip Browning, it is about Finnish foreign policy)
4. (I couldn't open Lukacs' article, so I skip it for technical reasons)
5. (this is a citation, scip)
6. (Kuusisto's article is old (1959), skip)
7. The next source (Phillip A. Petersen, Scandinavia and the "Finlandization" of Soviet Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, Vol. 38, No. 1, The New Europe:Revolution in East-West Relations (1991), pp. 60-70) says: "Yet, in January 1943, the United States, with Sweden's support, approached the Soviet Union about mediating a separate Finnish-Soviet peace. All the legally constituted parties participated in the Finnish government, but a "Peace Opposition" demanding a separate peace as soon as possible began to acquire strength in all but the Patri- otic People's Movement. By September, leading Finnish politicians began to alter their assessments of the strategic situation, and negotiations with the Soviets were finally initiated through Stockholm at the end of 1943. Unfortunately, the severity of the armistice terms that Stalin offered Finland in the spring of 1944 undermined the Peace Opposition. Only after the Soviet offensive in June was the Finnish na- tion prepared to pass from war to peace as an unbroken political entity. With the conclusion of a Soviet-Finnish armistice agreement in September, the Finnish government was compelled to wage war in Lapland to expel German forces from its territory." In other words, Soviet offensive forced the Finns to accept the terms that initially were unacceptable for them. That means the Finns lost the war.
8. (I couldn get an access to this article (Sweedler) from my computer, so I have to skip this source)
9. (I skip several sources that seem hardly relevant)
10. Linde's "Finland's war of choice". The author says that Soviet goal was to knock Finland out of the war. This goal was successfully achieved. The author quotes Mannerheim's letter to Hitler where he explain that he had no choice but to accept Soviet terms to save his nation from total extermination.

I think you can continue in the same vein. Please look through at least 10 more relevant peer-reviewed or other good academic sources, and present your summary. That will be a mainstream view. Later, we can discuss how the minority viewpoints should be represented in the article (of course, they should not be presented in the infobox).
Regards. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Problem with your above examples is that you repeatedly mix your own opinions with what the source is stating and/or extrapolate on what the author describes - possibly basing your assumption on the authors meaning on other works. In other words you are performing OR or SYN almost all the time with the above. Case in point: "I think author's opinion on the ContWar's outcome is clear...". Which means they do not exactly represent anything that could be understood as saying anything under wikipedia rules towards the matter at hand. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the text cited by me allow double interpretation? If you really think the author meant something else, please, explain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

To put it nicely it does not matter what i - or indeed you - think the author means if he has not stated it clearly in his text. Any interpretation towards such is already an act of OR in itself. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

All in all what this means is that of your '10 sources' not a single one makes any valid references as to who would have won the war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

So the fact that Finland was forced to make peace and accept terms dictated by the Soviets means that Finland won the war or it was inconclusive??

You are often guilty of OR yourself, but you are quick to call simple logical conclusions that you don't like OR... -YMB29 (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any one but you stating that there even would have been a claim that Finland would have won the war - so please try to stick with the facts and sourced statements this time. Sources used in the example above only agree that Finland made peace. Nothing beyond that. None of the authors of the sample examined above agrees with the statement that anyone would have won the war in question. Now if the authors do not state so such a conclusion can not be attributed to any of the sources examined. Which would make any statement regarding 'Soviet victory' OR when examining the sources provided. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Concluding that the Soviets won from the stated fact that Finland agreed to Soviet terms is not OR... -YMB29 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly what OR is. It is your deduction from what the source is in your opinion saying. It does not even matter if you would be right or wrong with your deduction, it is OR regardless. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No OR refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. The statement that CW was a Soviet victory is supported by at least one reliable source (cited in the infobox), therefore the whole discussion cannot be OR. We just analyse if what other sources say is consistent with the source already cited in the article. Our policy does not say that the source and the WP text must coincide verbatim. Again, is the idea that the CW was a Soviet victory supported by reliable sources? Yes (one source has already been cited in the article). Does the quote provided by me contradict to the fact that CW was a Soviet victory? No. Does it support this thesis? Yes. Therefore, I simply do not understand what your idea about my OR is based on.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite simple, see the intro of the page you linked (which you must have chosen to overlook): "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." Since statements you made from the some of the sources were not directly supported by the sources in question those statements were nothing but OR according to wikipedia's rules. It does not matter if some other source states that it would have been a 'Soviet victory' if the source you claimed was stating that it was simply does not say so. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement I added to the article is supported by reliable sources (already in the article). Other source just provide additional information to that, which does not contradict to what those sources say. Since I am not adding new sources to the article, I am not doing any original research. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This particular discussion started from your claim "Unfortunately, the border between "digging sources" and cherry-picking is thin, so it is always useful to try to look first what mainstream views are. To do that, try the following..." After which procedure we can see that none of your sample set of 10 sources actually support the claim of 'Soviet victory' despite of your allegations. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As I told you before, 2+2=4 is not OR... However, I provided sources that explicitly state Soviet victory, which you ignore, so the problem here is not WP:OR but WP:IJDLI for you... -YMB29 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually such a case is mentioned in the WP:OR#Routine_calculations where making basic arithmetics is marked as a special case from the OR rule. In other words in subjects beyond basic arithmetics your case of '2+2=4' is not valid unless it is directly supported by sources relevant to the matter. It would be beneficial if you read the rules before you try to enforce them. Also i never denied the existence of sources which explicitly state 'Soviet victory' - however this discussion was about the random sample set of sources which Paul Siebert falsely claimed to support that claim (claim which was, as shown, OR). However you need to also accept that there are sources which state that it was a limited victory - which currently seems to be the case (i.e. WP:IJDLI). - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is exactly one source...

Simple logical conclusions are the same as simple calculations, if you did not get my point... -YMB29 (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again you have only proved that you have not read the wikipedia rules in question, quote from that particular rule: "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources. See also Category:Conversion templates." Rule makes special exception only for those mathematical calculations and does not indicate in any way that the same leeway would be extended to logic. Your attempt to game the system benefits no one. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I am gaming the system for what? Where am I trying to add OR?

It would be great if you would always be so careful to not violate OR, not only when it suits you, as you have no problems inserting OR in this article[35]...

Anyway, in wars the losing side agrees to the demands of the victorious side; this is as obvious as a simple calculation. The OR rule cannot be used against common sense... -YMB29 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Except wikipedia's rules disagree with you. The exception made for routine calculations is specific and is explicitly limited to only certain cases which do not include logic. By gaming the system i referred to your openly stated intent to read the wikipedias rules in favor of your opinion against the explicit wording of the rules - which BTW denote following as constituting OR: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources - in other words if the source does not state that it was a 'Soviet victory' then regardless of your opinion or your analysis - or 'common sense' - of the text you can not use it to claim that. If you can not agree with wikipedia's rules then perhaps you should reconsider editing it?

As to the matter regarding N. Beloostrov the sources and the quotations used in the article from the said sources are identical. Only you consider then to be OR even though it has been repeatedly demonstrated to you that they are not OR, since they are published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented (as per what WP:OR) states). So far you have been unable to show any way in which they would constitute OR in any manner. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple logic is OR for you, while more complex synthesis of primary sources is not... You should not be the one complaining about gaming the system... -YMB29 (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again you try to personalize the matter - It is not OR just to me, it is OR according to wikipedia and its' rules. If you can not stand wikipedia's rules why do you insist on editing it? Primary sources are valid as long as they are used within the limitations set in wikipedia and are preferably supported by other source(s). The section you refer to happens to fulfill both of these conditions. Just because you do not like it is not a reason enough for that to be OR or SYN. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So where does it explicitly say in the sources that there was no fighting at N. Beloostrov? That was the conclusion you synthesized...

Obviously you follow the rules only when you feel like it and interpret them the way you want. This is disruptive behavior, so maybe it is you who should stop editing here? -YMB29 (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read what the section you dislike actually consists of. It does not state that there would not have been a fight only that the Finnish units facing the site did not see any evidence of a fight nor did they take part into one fight in that location at that time. And furthermore notes that the (Finnish) chronology of the war (which is not a primary source) does not in any way note that there would have been fighting going on at N. Beloostrov at that time. All which are accurate descriptions directly from the sources in question.

It is kinda sad that it needs to be expressed in such a way but it is necessary because it is impossible to find a source stating what didn't happen at that place, as if nothing took place then there would have been no reason to make remarks of it - which in practice means that your demand of finding a Finnish source expressly stating what didn't take place is just circular reasoning. In addition you should not forget NPOV requirement of wikipedia - if only Soviet view point of the events is presented (when opposing views do exist) then it would constitute a NPOV violation. In other words you are free to express what the Soviet/Russian sources state of the event but you can not demand Finnish statements regarding the same event - or directly related to the same event (as per WP:OR) - to be of OR (or SYN or dubious) just because you dislike what they are stating. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't like that sources say that the Finns got kicked out of N. Beloostrov, so you added OR to challenge it. You are implying in the article that it did not happen and the Soviet sources are wrong. Just because you did not find any evidence of it in Finnish sources, especially primary ones, does not mean it did not happen; only a reliable source can conclude that.

And after this, you claim that simple deductions are OR...

You said that a source has to explicitly state something for it to not be OR, but then you make excuses for yourself.

This is just laughable, please continue... -YMB29 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually you got that totally wrong. I (as well as User:Whiskey) stated that it would pose no problems to accept the claim regarding Valkeasaaren asema if there existed any sources from the Finnish side which would support it. You really ought to read WP:NPOV on the topic on how to handle issues with conflicts. In addition the war diaries are published on-line via the National Archives Service of Finland as well as existing as hardcopies in one form or another (some as actual hardcopies, most as microfilms) in the archives - which as it happens does fulfill the requirement for a 'reliable source'. Same goes with the chronology of the war (which is not even a primary source). So all your claims regarding 'non-reliability' of the sources are invalid to begin with as per rules laid in WP:RS.

Show then where in the text there are any violations of wikipedia rules. Show me where they state something that is not supported by the source in question. There are no simple deductions or logical conclusions (which are forbidden as per WP:OR) in the text you referred to - only content is what little the Finnish side sources explicitly state that took place at the location at that time. The sole exception is the chronology which was added after suggestion from non-involved editor who recommended it to be added to the section as it is a secondary source which describes the action in the area around the time in question but makes no remarks towards any activity at the Valkeasaaren asema. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So you got a source that explicitly says nothing happened in N. Beloostrov or not? If not then it is OR... -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You really need to read both the text in the article as well as WP:OR again. I did not state that nothing happened (which would be OR since it is impossible to find a source that states that nothing took place at some random spot). I stated that neither of the Finnish units neighboring the locality entered the locality at that time, one even noted that its area was 'rauhallinen' (English: tranquil, peaceful, calm, quiet,..) while the other unit was explicitly ordered not to advance to the Valkeasaaren asema (supported by sources, not OR), and that the Finnish chronology of the war does not note that there would have been fighting at Valkeasaaren asema at that time (also supported by the source, not OR). And once again, your demand is nothing but circular reasoning because if nothing happened, then nothing would have been recorded. Again, read WP:NPOV as to how you should approach such an issue. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't hide your OR behind NPOV.

You are implying that nothing happened based on your own research. No source makes this conclusion, so you can't state or imply it.

Again, read the rules: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.[36]

As you wrote below: If you interpret the source you are already going beyond what the source actually stated. That is, as per WP:OR, original research because the statement can not be attributed to the source in question.

Time to practice what you preach... -YMB29 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again wrong, you can not claim to be abiding by one of the wikipedia's rules by ignoring another. In other words you can not trump NPOV with OR - you need to respect both of them (or all of them to be precise). There is nothing implied, all that is stated is explicitly backed up by the sources in question. They state the situation on the Finnish side at the location in question and that is it - nothing beyond that. Do note that your source also implies that there would have been Finnish sources in N. Beloostrov at the time while Finnish sources state they weren't there - that 'implification' is of exact same value as the one claim the Finnish sources introduce. Just having conflicting sources does not mean that either one would be in violation of wikipedia's rules. Every statement in the section of the article in question is backed (explicitly) by the sources in question - so again, not OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well once again that makes no sense...

Just because there is no description of what happened from the Finnish point of view, does not mean that you have to insert your OR to balance it out. That is not what NPOV is about.

The sources I added explicitly say that the Finns were there, while your sources don't.

You say: "Finnish sources state they weren't there." What are those Finnish sources? Your OR says that... -YMB29 (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no OR. There is just what the Finnish sources state about the situation at that location around the time the supposed attack to the village took place. Both are written according to what the source state so the OR claim fails already at that point. Finnish sources discuss the state and orders of the Finnish units bordering the location, first one having been explicitly ordered not to advance to the village and other one describing the situation at the time of the supposed attack as calm/quiet/tranquil and did not witness any fighting at Valkeasaaren asema at that time. So there we have a conflict, one side states that there was fighting at Valkeasaaren asema and other one does one (actually stating that it was all quiet at that location) - as said before that does not mean that sources from either side would be in violation of wikipedia's rules.

Actually if we read the NPOV statement "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - which quite openly states that if you try to sidetrack or remove the Finnish side of the story you are yourself in direct violation on NPOV. Also I already showed that the sources used fulfill the 'reliable source' criteria. As said, it would really help if you read the WP:OR and WP:NPOV before you start to argue about them. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Does any one object the removal of the flags (or & syn) from the section of the article in question? As it has been now shown that no wikipedia rules were violated in their usage. The flags in question are intended for remarking actual violations of wikipedia rules not for tagging sections that you just happen to dislike nor are they for discrediting the views held by the opposing side. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole text needs to be removed... Your OR does not belong in the article.

Again, NPOV is not an excuse to insert OR. Stop trying to game the system. -YMB29 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Only problem for you is that the text in question is not OR according to the wikipedia's rules of defining what is original research. Again, read WP:OR before you start making complaints - just because you dislike something, or that something disagrees/conflicts with your favorite source, does not turn it into OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because you don't like something, you can't make up OR to counter it...

I am not the only one who told you that it is OR.[37] The only reason the text is still there is because we did not get enough comments from others. -YMB29 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, show how it would be OR, so far you have only shown your ignorance towards the rules laid down in WP:OR.

Actually, wording of the phrase at the time that comment was placed was OR, however what you forgot - or apparently intentionally chose to omit - to mention is that the wording was changed after that comment was made. To make the wording comply with WP:OR in accordance to the comments from 3rd party editors. Now the wording matches exactly with the sources so they are OR no longer. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not much changed and it is still blatant OR.

Your inability to understand basic rules and/or your selective application of them to fit your POV is very disruptive... -YMB29 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So how is it in violation of WP:OR? This is something you have avoided answering for a very long time. So show precisely how exactly it is in violation of that rule. Again, just because source disagrees, or even conflicts, with your source does not mean that it would be OR or SYN nor does it mean a POV that is in conflict with you would be disruptive. Read WP:NPOV on how to handle conflicts and how to represent conflicting views - demanding that the opposing would be removed is not exactly valid option. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing OR is valid.

How many times I have to explain to you why it is OR? [38][39][40]

You made your own conclusion based on the sources you looked at, and, as you said below, "deductions and logical conclusions are still equally worthless since we are writing into wikipedia and not trying to write a thesis on the topic."

Listen to yourself... -YMB29 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You are still not saying anything about what exactly in the statements would be in violation of WP:OR. Also once again you are apparently intentionally referring to posts made on earliest versions of that text, though the claims made in the posts in questions no longer valid since the text they refer to has been modified. Your claims are apparently that there primary sources would have been used to draw conclusions - however as has been stated and shown what has been done is merely presenting the data from the sources in question without drawing conclusions from it. Use of primary sources is not OR despite of your claims besides not all of the sources used were primary sources contrary to your allegations. So what exactly is in those statements in violation of WP:OR? They are exactly written as what the sources state - without any analysis or conclusions (or deductions) being made on the information presented and the data is presented in a way which explicitly notes the sources of the information as per guideline for use of primary sources. Again, just because they conflict with your POV does not make their information invalid - read WP:NPOV on how to handle such conflicts.

Since there are no deductions or logical conclusions being done based on the information presented i fail to see what exactly you perceive as OR in that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You are implying a conclusion that is not stated in any of the sources. You cannot ignore what the rule explicitly says...

Whether it is primary or secondary sources, it does not matter.

You changed the wording but it is still the same OR... The last link quotes the article text and it is almost the same as it is in the article now, so don't claim that those posts are not valid anymore.

You are just looking for excuses... -YMB29 (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's see what the 'rule states' shall we: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The section you marked has only single source in use which only states precisely what the source in question is stating of the situation at the location at the time. So it fails the criteria for 'SYNTH' on both accounts - it neither consists of multiple sources nor does it make any conclusions beyond what is stated in the source itself. What can be said without it being OR is exactly what the sources state, they saw situation being calm at Valkeasaaren asema (or tranquil/quiet which ever of the translations of 'rauhallinen' you wish to use).

And apart from your opinion who else exactly supported the statement that they would have been OR? Just because you dislike something does not mean that anything conflicting with it would be OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a link where a third opinion confirmed that it is blatant OR.

Do you read only one sentence at a time? How about reading the rest of that paragraph: If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.[41]

This discussion cannot continue if you can't even read a rule... -YMB29 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the third opinion stated that it would depend on the wording if it were OR or not - and the wording was changed in accordance to the input from the WP:3O. In addition the third opinion stated that should there be a secondary source which would describe the fighting in the Karelian Isthmus in detail but would omit any mention of fighting at the site in question at the time in question then it would not be OR to state that fighting did not take place - and exactly such a source was provided even though article does not include such a statement. In which in practice means that you choose to disregard the WP:3O once again when it did not favor you.

Problem for you SYNTH claim is that nothing such like you describe takes place in the article. There is no equivalent to "therefore C" used in the article at any point which renders the whole SYNTH speculation on your part totally void. All what the article is stating is the situation in the Finnish side at the time closest to the location as explicitly supported by the sources - and nothing beyond that. No conclusions have been made in the text, only what the sources state - or as in case of the secondary source as per the aforementioned WP:3O the lack of mention. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So you read the rest of the paragraph of the rule, but you forgot what it said in the beginning. You know the part where it is stated that making or implying a conclusion ("therefore C") is equally incorrect. You are not only being selective in how you apply the rules, but also selective of what part of a rule you choose to remember... Can you stop this disruptive behavior?

The user giving the third opinion did not say anything about wording, and your change did not make any difference. He said that secondary sources can only make the conclusion you made, not that synthesis with secondary sources is ok.[42] Once again, you failed to understand what is written.

You argued with that user, so I guess that means that his opinion did not favor me... -YMB29 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again wrong, you are referring to the discussion which took place before the current entry was formed - and before all of the sources were added. In addition WP:3O stated that only secondary source could be used for the 'fact of omission' as was suggested earlier by uninvolved editor - which is exactly what was done. Primary sources are only used according to wikipedia's rules and do not state beyond what has been already included to the article. What you seem to be forgetting is that the section was rewritten in accordance to the suggestions from the WP:3O after that discussion on 10 August 2011 took place - so you are currently knowingly referring to an outdated discussion which has not had any relevance to the actual content in the article for a long time. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The changes you made since did not fix the OR.

Facts by omission are not valid for secondary sources also. Again, you misunderstood what he said. Secondary sources have to be used because they make interpretations of raw facts for you; if they just present the raw facts from primary sources, you still can't make your own interpretations.

If you have trouble understanding what is written in sources or by other users, maybe you should stop editing, or at least ask for help... -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you please make up your mind? The WP:3O you just previously referred as well as the comment from the other involved editor both stated essentially the same, quoted here for the convenience: "However, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, secondary sources can only be used as justifications for assertions of this sort. Especially in these sorts of "facts by omission" points." && "If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource." (and that is precisely what has since been provided as a source). Both were requested and actually even referred by you in this discussion. So which is it, are you just cherry picking the details you prefer from the posts or refusing the get to the point? Both uninvolved editors stated the same regarding the secondary sources and the 'facts of omission'. So there is nothing to be misunderstood.

So far you have been unable to show in any manner that it would have been OR. And now you even state that the posts made by uninvolved editors - when discussing facts you personally dislike - are not actually valid while the sections of the very same posts when discussing text which no longer even exits - as the supposed OR has since been fixed according to what the uninvolved editors had suggested - it some would be valid to the discussion at hand?

Also once again, as stated several times, not all of the used sources are primary sources, again according to the suggestions made by the very same uninvolved editors. And just because you dislike something and make claims that something would supposedly be OR does not magically turn it into OR - especially when it has been shown several times that the section marks the events according to what the sources are stating. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You are very confused once again...

So you are saying that the user who gave the third opinion said that facts by omission are valid if secondary sources are used (However, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, secondary sources can only be used as justifications for assertions of this sort. Especially in these sorts of "facts by omission" points.)? This is just laughable...

Again, he said that secondary sources can only be used, because they give interpretations, which you can use, but you cannot interpret facts stated in sources yourself, even if the sources are secondary. You cannot claim that something did not happen is a fact because it was omitted from the sources, both primary and secondary, you looked at, since this is your own interpretation or analysis.

Why do you bother editing the English Wikipedia if you can't comprehend what is written in rules, sources and posts? Instead of asking for help you just argue... -YMB29 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again you are referring to a discussion that handled text which has not existed in the article for well over a year. And both of the uninvolved editors explicitly stated the very same thing, secondary sources can be used for 'facts of omission'. Instead of repeatedly refusing to accept the feedback and complaining about it how about you would try to do something constructively? I already used the constructive criticism of the uninvolved editors to improve the article instead of rejecting their input. So far the community which has involved itself into the argument has stated that secondary sources can be used for making facts of omission which does make your claims rather hollow.

And actually it is not my opinion if the source omits something - and the text in the article is explicitly clear of the issue and it follows exactly the feedback given by uninvolved editors. "However, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, secondary sources can only be used as justifications for assertions of this sort. Especially in these sorts of "facts by omission" points." - this did not refer to the use of the primary sources like you have implied but instead referred to the fact that at that time article erroneously used primary source for that - it has since been fixed according the feedback. "If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource." - which is exactly what was done, to the letter. - Wanderer602 (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about the user from the OR noticeboard, who does not seem to be an expert on OR, since he was accused of OR himself and was asking questions on that noticeboard.[43][44]

Facts by omission is OR, and it is ridiculous to claim that the user giving the third opinion was saying that OR is allowed with secondary sources...

The point that you missed is that you need secondary sources to make the conclusion for you, instead of making up facts by omission. Secondary sources can make facts by omission, not you.

Even going by your twisted logic, why did you still leave the part with the primary sources in the article, if "facts by omission are allowed only with secondary sources"?

Either way you don't make sense... -YMB29 (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Refusal to take heed from community feedback is also against wikipedias guidelines. Still according to two separate uninvolved editors secondary sources can be used for such facts of omission - and it is even currently explicitly noted as such (Neither does Finnish chronology of the Continuation War mention ...) in the article - it is not claiming anything that can not be shown to be true from the source itself. Primary sources were left in because they give better idea of what was taking place in the area at the time.

Whole issue has arisen because you have been demanding a source which existence is an impossibility - if nothing took place then nothing would have been written about it either would it? Which makes your demand of a source which states that nothing happened to be nothing else than intentionally hindering other wikipedia editors by circular reasoning. Now then i have provided the next best things, the descriptions from the Finnish side events of the same time at the same location as well as the secondary source. You have had ample amount of chances to take constructively part to resolving the matter yet you have consistently refused to co-operate. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to "co-operate" with your terrible OR and your disregard for rules and common sense.

There are many sources that say that the event happened, and you cannot claim that nothing happened according to Finnish sources, unless a source explicitly says so. Otherwise it is OR.

So now you admit that you left OR in the article. Primary sources giving a better idea is not an excuse for inserting OR...

Well this is not the first time you misinterpreted third opinion feedback to fit your POV. Once again, the user told you that secondary sources (which differ from primary sources in that they make conclusions and interpretations) are needed for your claim, especially in cases where you create facts by omission. He did not say that facts by omission are allowed with secondary sources.

The point is that you are guilty of OR, so it is very ironic when you falsely accuse others of it... -YMB29 (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is no OR as per the rules in WP:OR. The statements made in the article are based on reliable sources which are relevant to the matter at hand and directly support their respective statements. Just because you dislike something does not turn it into OR. When the WP:3O was requested the text in the article was very, very different. It has since been changed in accordance to the feedback to the WP:3O which is fact which you have chosen to disregard. In addition statement made towards rest of the text are no longer relevant to the article since the text has since been rewritten to comply with WP:OR & WP3O feedback.

And there was nothing to misinterpret in the WP:3O feedback. Neither user said that primary sources would be invalid only that the for the 'facts of omission' type of claims a reliable secondary source was required. And should you have read the article that is precisely how it is written - primary sources are used explicitly and solely in accordance to wikipedia's rules and back up solely the claims made by the sources without any analysis or conclusions. While secondary sources are used in accordance to the WP:3O feedback:

"However, as wikipedia is an encyclopedia, secondary sources can only be used as justifications for assertions of this sort. Especially in these sorts of "facts by omission" points."

"If there are indeed reliable secondary sources that do not mention fighting at that location, than the claim that there was no fighting is not original resource."

Fact also is that you have been unable to show that i would have been 'guilty' of OR - mainly because what has been written is in accordance to the WP:OR despite of your claims and endless accusations. In addition none of the claims i made with regards to others users' OR has been in violation of wikipedia's rules either, you yourself showed that you had not read and understood the WP:OR - or then intentionally chose to disregard it - with your previous claims with regards to 'simple logics' and desperate attempts to claim that it would somehow been equal to basic low-level arithmetics. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple logical conclusions are like simple calculations. Maybe for you that is hard to understand...

You accuse me and others of not understanding the OR rule, while you have shown a total disregard for it and are unable to comprehend even simple phrases.

Again, whatever change you made for your OR did not make a difference. It is still blatant OR.

I don't think you know what you are talking about when you say "facts by omission"... Secondary sources can be used for them, but only if the authors make them, not you. Is that so hard to understand?

So again, you challenge common sense conclusions, but make up excuses for your own OR. -YMB29 (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Again you have totally misunderstood the WP:OR, here "Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources." It explicitly notes what kind of operations are allowed and even then remarks that it is only acceptable if there is consensus among the editors for it. Neither is true in this case - 'simple logics' is not similar to any of the operations listed and there does not exists consensus for it either. So nice try, but it only proved that you have not read and understood WP:OR.

The citations i have used have been made in accordance to what is stated in WP:OR. The changes i made had clear differences as in the version which was discussed by the WP:3O i analyzed primary source and used that information (which was OR) but after getting the feedback i searched and included a secondary source which handled the fighting in the are in question in detail to use for that purpose (as suggested by both uninvolved editors) and made certain that primary sources only and explicitly backed up uninterpreted & unanalyzed statements. So as stated before there does not appear to be OR in that section of the article any longer.

Common sense is only your perception if it, see for example Wikipedia:Common sense is not common or WP:UNCOMMON. It is not exactly valid tool for anything since it solely based on your personal POV. And i wasn't aware that you considered following wikipedia's rules as 'making up excuses'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice try, but WP:OR does not disallow common sense (see WP:COMMON). This is not just my common sense, since the user above told you the same thing. Your claims such as that Finland paying reparations means the Soviets won is OR are just laughable. Again, they are the same as claiming that 2+2=4 is OR...

Parroting the same thing over and over, about how you fixed your OR and it is not OR anymore, is not going to help you. You continue to ignore the main issues.

You are implying your own conclusion. You were told by others to use secondary sources, because those sources interpret primary sources. If you are interpreting the information from them yourself then it is no different than interpreting primary sources... You are completely missing the point as usual. -YMB29 (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is also common sense to state that Finns were not in N. Beloostrov at the time in question but you refuse to accept this - view which is not held only by me as was shown by the user above you. Also it seems you still haven't read the WP:OR - it is quite clearly stated that simply arithmetics are exempt from the rules as is stated in WP:NOTOR however both pages make it very clear that the exception does not extend beyond the low level arithmetics.

I guess the minor detail that the reported OR has long since been fixed somehow eludes you? Referring to posts which are no longer relevant to the matter at hand is like comparing apples with oranges. The sole main issue is that the whole segment starting from "However, according to Soviet sources the..." is totally out of place in an article discussing the whole of the war but yet you have insisted on including it to the article.

Again you are referring to posts which discussed long version of the text which has not existed for well over a year. And no, just because the sources disagree wth your POV does not mean that they would be implying anything beyond what they are actually stating. Only conclusion in the whole section is the one from the secondary source as per suggestion given by both of the uninvolved editors who gave their input to the discussion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Stating that the Finns were not in Beloostrov requires research of documents, so it is OR.

Again, read WP:COMMON. Just because it is not written that simple conclusions are not OR in the rule text, does not mean that they are. I just don't know what to think if you say that obvious things are OR... Well obvious things that you don't like...

You can't fix OR. Just because you added a secondary source, does not mean anything; you still can't interpret it. You fail to understand what makes secondary sources different from primary ones.

Well you can continue to misinterpret the third opinion comment if that makes you feel good, but to others that sounds ridiculous... -YMB29 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because something disagrees with your POV - and your opinion does appear to be just OR - does not make it into OR. Actually you can fix OR if the OR was caused for mishandling of the sources, which it was in this case. As it stands the sources and the comments they back up are no longer in violation of OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is clear OR, read the section below... -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As for your sources, Werth mentions the general location in two places, first at "In the north, on September 4, the Finns occupied the former frontier station of Beloostrov, twenty miles north of Leningrad, but were thrown out on the following day." and second "There is also no doubt that the Finns did, at one moment, push beyond the old frontier, since they captured the Russian frontier town of Beloostrov only twenty miles north-west of Leningrad" - note that he discusses Beloostrov without identifying between S. or N. Beloostrov. So that does not actually state anything with regard to any event taking place at N. Beloostrov at the time. And given that Luknitsky account is a personal account of the events it is a primary source not a secondary source which becomes immediately apparent when reading the accounts from that source. Especiually since the mention regarding fighting at N. Beloostrov on 4 September starts with "Я знал следующее" (which only notes that the description was his 'personal knowledge' and not a fact - not even according to book itself).

Russian historian Juri Kilin mentions the Soviet attacks against Valkeasaari ( = S. Beloostrov) on 5 September 1941 in 'Jatkosodan Hyökkäystaisteluja 1941' noting that Soviet counterattack took the village. But he continues that Finns were able to hold on to neighboring Aleksandrovka and also managed to throw Soviets out of S. Beloostrov on the same day. He also continues that later on during the September 1941 Soviets launched other attempts to take S. Beloostrov but these 'came to nothing'. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So what?

Luknitsky directly says that the fighting happened, so it does not matter if the source is primary or secondary.

Also, the station is in N. Beloostrov, not S. Beloostrov... -YMB29 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Werth never discusses of railroad station which is what was at N. Beloostrov, by claiming that he did you are already doing OR - Werth only discusses of Beloostrov, without specifying which of the two he is referring to. Luknitsky's accounts are his personal views and there fore are not open to analysis or interpretation unlike you have presented them in the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So I guess when Werth writes "station of Beloostrov" he refers to a space station...

Luknitsky's book is a reliable published source, whether it is primary or secondary, that directly mentions the fighting:

Through the Siege, by Pavel Luknitskiy (p. 58):

Новый Белоостров, захваченный был противником 4 сентября и отбитый нами на следующий день, снова три дня назад, 11 сентября, оказался в руках врага. Создался опасный клин, угрожающий всей линии обороны 291 й дивизии. Следовало немедленно восстановить положение.

traslantion:

Novyi Beloostrov was captured by the enemy on September 4 and retaken by us the next day, but three days ago, on September 11, it was in the hands of the enemy again. This created a dangerous bulge that threatens the entire defensive line of the 291st Division. The situation needs to be restored.

Can you remove the OR tag, or do I have to get an admin involved? -YMB29 (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Station can also refer to a border crossing location which S. Beloostrov was. Unless you can show that Werth is explicitly discussing N. Beloostrov then his comments can not be understood as to referring solely to the N. Beloostrov and can equally well descrive S. Beloostrov.

Luknitsky starts that section with 'Я знал следующее' which means that the writer himself had understood that. Not that he would have stated it as a fact. As said we can not analyze the primary sources and if Luknitsky does state (like he does) that he understood that something had come to pass it should be noted as such instead of a fact. So OR stays until both of the issues noted above are cleared. - Wanderer602 (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What ridiculous things you can come up with...

There is no station in S. Beloostrov...

Luknitsky explicitly says that there was fighting in the quote above. "Я знал следующее" means "I knew the following", so how does that mean that it is not a fact?

You don't make sense... The third opinion proved you wrong once again and you are getting desperate. -YMB29 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no railroad station in Valkeasaari (S. Beloostrov) but text never referred to a railroad station but instead discussed that of the "frontier station" (which happens to be synonymous to 'border station', which Valkeasaari was).

Luknitsky never stated witnessing the event, only that somehow he personally knew that it had taken place. Which is something you are not making clear in the article, instead you are specifically claiming that the personal knowledge - which could well be hearsay - is a solid unbiased fact. Even worse you are not representing a primary source like it has been presented at the source itself. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So what station was in S. Beloostrov? A shopping station?

Luknitsky was a journalist and knew what was going on. If you think this is an unreliable source, go ask about it at the RS noticeboard. Now you are saying that I have to have a primary source? What are you talking about? You are just trying to cherry pick something, when you know you are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Station does not necessitate it being any kind of transit station. By claiming that it does you are already drawing conclusions beyond what the sources are stating. Which is OR.

Luknitsky himself notes what he had learned from others and what he had witnessed. And he notes the difference between them. Luknitsky's account is a primary source and you need to handle it as such instead of drawing conclusion from like you you have done so far. Just because you like it does not turn a second hand account from a primary source into a secondary source which could be analyzed. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so what station was it? Tell me. I guess maybe it was a space station...

Luknitsky directly says that it happened, so I am not drawing any conclusions.

This is getting funnier with each post... -YMB29 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Author only specifies it as a 'frontier station' (i.e. border outpost) - he does not state that it would have been a railroad station like you imply or rather conclude it to be.

No, Luknitsky is not saying that it happened (according to account he wasn't there when it happened), only that he was told that it happened. He seems to have described very clearly on what he had witnessed and what he had came to understand. And since it is noted as being second hand information you need to show it as such in the article according to the rules regarding the use of the primary sources. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What is second hand information? You can't even read Russian, so don't try to interpret the text yourself. Again, if you question the reliability of the information, go to the RS noticeboard[45].

Border outpost?? Now you are just shamelessly making stuff up... -YMB29 (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Second hand information since the author himself stated in the source that he was elsewhere at the time in question. And you got it bit wrong it is reliability of how it actually backs up your claims that I'm questioning not the source itself.

Border station or border outpost - was the closest option to 'frontier station' in dictionaries. And still the author (Werth) never states that we would have been discussing a railroad station of Valkeasaari (N. Beloostrov). - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We are not talking about the 18th century US[46]... Well maybe you think we are...

So now for something to be fact a person writing about it has to witness it himself?? I am quoting the source directly, so you are questioning the source. -YMB29 (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to 18th century US. I was referring to what the dictionaries offered me.

And no, he does not need to witness it himself, but since it is a primary source you need to state it like he has stated it in his source. Since author states that it was second hand information you need to say the same in the article if you refer to the primary source in question. Because if you don't then you are already analyzing a primary which constitutes OR on itself. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case the person who wrote the Finnish war diary entries did not himself witness the events too, so all the entries are "second hand" information...

Do you yourself even understand what you write?

What dictionaries are you talking about? -YMB29 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You got that part a bit wrong. A war diary is a logbook type account of the events. Not a personal diary. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The person making the entries is not involved personally, so by your logic it is "second hand" information or rumor... -YMB29 (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite since war diaries are official records in form of reports and documents unlike personal diaries. Perhaps you ought to read relevant articles like War diary (for easy reference: regularly updated official record) && Logbook compared against personal diary (personal diary may include a person's experiences, and/or thoughts or feelings, including comment on current events outside the writer's direct experience) - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That does not change anything, according to your logic... -YMB29 (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the entries again. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it be helpful if I write an article and publish it in "Sotahistoriallinen aikakauskirja" or somewhere else, even if I get somebody to translate it to Russian I would try to publish it in some Russian warhistorical magazine? It would be worth of effort if it would put to rest this ridiculous contradiction. (This is not an argument!) Anyway, we three have unearthed enough material to state out the final word about this issue which has puzzled military historians both sides of Soviet-Finnish border. At least for me it is quite clear what happened in Novoi Beloostrov railway station-Aleksandrovka-River Sestra railway bridge tringle during those days. --Whiskey (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you a historian? We should leave it to historians to figure this out, and not engage in OR.

You can publish what you think if you have the opportunity, but I don't think it can be used here.[47] -YMB29 (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess if I manage to get it published in a peer reviewed magazine which concentrates to Finnish military history, it could be used here. Your link doesn't apply here, as it is not a self publication but internationally recognized Finnish war-historical magazine. Also, if you claim that a questionable source, then there seems no way to solve this issue here. --Whiskey (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are not a historian, how are you going to get it published in a peer reviewed magazine? -YMB29 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In a same way as everybody else: Writing a good, solid article with proper references about an issue of interest or controverse providing new insights to the issue. --Whiskey (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Holding an academic degree is not actually a requirement fro getting an article published in peer reviewed sources. It just tends to help. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think you have to be at least an expert on the subject with a reputation and/or writing experience... -YMB29 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That depends on the journal in question. Quite a few actually require a fee ('subscription') just to accept article for any kind of review let alone for peer review. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• From here, discussion continues two thread titles down at heading *Original research in this article* Paavo273 (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Observation the second source cited in the infobox result does say limited Soviet victory: "The Soviets accepted limited victory over Finland short of absolute conquest in 1944 because of pressing military needs elsewhere." Regardless of reasons for limiting victory, (and it could be argued that effective Finnish defence delayed absolute conquest by the Soviets long enough that pressing military needs arising elsewhere forced them to accept less than total victory), it should be at least listed as a "limited Soviet victory" in the infobox. --Nug (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"Limited" implies that the objectives were not fully achieved. However, since it is still unclear what Stalin's objectives were regarding Finland (some authors, see above, believe that he sees total occupation improctical, other think the goal was to knock out Finland from the war), we cannot seriously discuss if the victory was limited. Did the Gulf War lead to destruction of Saddam's regime? No. Was it a "victory" or a "limited victory"? It was a decisive victory...--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Which is what I have suggested here, over and over again, over the last few days. And what I suggested several weeks ago, even though the exact wording then was "partial Soviet victory". A number of other editors have also suggested the same, but the discussion has been completely derailed by YMB29 primarily, through trying to make it look as if the discussion was about Soviet victory vs no Soviet victory. Thomas.W (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Completely derailed by me?? Was I the one making personal attacks[48] or was it me who started making disruptive edits to the talk page? -YMB29 (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if we take limited victory stated in that source literally, we can't ignore the numerous sources that literally say just Soviet victory.[49] -YMB29 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither can we ignore sources which state that it was limited victory. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw no sources so far that say it the victory was "limited". Which objectives the USSR hadn't achieved? Did Finland accepted all 1943 Soviet terms, or the Soviet 1944 demand had been softened as a result of a limited character of the Soviet victory?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Again you are requesting information on matters which border on OR already. However what can be verified is that Soviet terms of the spring 1944 (i.e. preceding the offensive) were harsher than those offered and accepted after the offensive in September 1944 - in other words Soviet offensive of 1944 against the Finns led to milder (from Finnish POV) treaty terms. Not much is known with certainty of the Soviet demands of summer of 1944 since Finns categorically refused to negotiate as long as the Soviet offensive continued after the initial negotiated effort on 22/23 June was determined by the Finns to constitute a demand for an unconditional surrender. However problem with this information is that any deduction based on it is OR unless some of the sources makes the same conclusion. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Re "unless some of the sources makes the same conclusion" you are right. Please read the quote from Petersen. What I am saying is based on that source, and, if you think I misinterpreted this author, please, explain what the misinterpretation consisted in.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In which case only the source which makes the conclusion is valid. It does not retroactively apply to other sources which do not make the same conclusion. Claiming that it would is again (depending on how you do it) either OR or SYN. Petersen does not appear to be stating (doesn't in the segment you copy pasted) that it would have been a Soviet victory. What he states is that i) Finland passed from war to peace (no determination on how or on what basis) and ii) that both Soviets and Finns agreed to sign an armistice. There is no mention of victory to either side. Only that the war ended to armistice. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No. You misinterpreted what the source said. The source said that (i) from 1943 Finland wanted to pass from war to peace; (ii) initially, the Soviet terms were seen as unacceptable by the Finns; (iii) in 1944, after the Red Army started its massive offensive, the Finns were forced to accept Soviet terms. If for you that does not mean Finnish defeat, then your understanding of the term "defeat" and "victory" are very odd.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The question was, and still is, does the source in question explicitly state that Soviets won? If it does not then all your deductions and logical conclusions are still equally worthless since we are writing into wikipedia and not trying to write a thesis on the topic. Read the WP:OR. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No more worthless than the conclusions that it didn't. Again, you may mention the views of some Finns who now believe Finland didn't lose (provided that those views are at least significant minority national views). Regarding the mainstream sources (for example, the sources cited by me) do you seriously claim they allow double interpretation?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules do not allow for such an interpretation of sources - again, read WP:OR. If you interpret the source you are already going beyond what the source actually stated. That is, as per WP:OR, original research because the statement can not be attributed to the source in question. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Which is what I have suggested here, over and over again, over the last few days. And what I suggested several weeks ago, even though the exact wording then was "partial Soviet victory". A number of other editors have also suggested the same, but the discussion has been completely derailed by YMB29 primarily, by trying to make it look as if the discussion was about Soviet victory vs no Soviet victory. Thomas.W (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• YMB29: It was completely derailed by you because you either couldn't understand, or didn't want to understand, that the discussion was not about Soviet victory vs no Soviet victory but total Soviet victory vs limited Soviet victory. Something that you, judging by your most recent comments, still haven't understood. Maybe because of insufficient language skills. Thomas.W (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thomas. Firstly, stop commenting on a contributor. That is a violation of our policy. Secondly, limited victory is still victory, so your persistent removal of this word from the infobox is in stark contradiction with your today's opinion. Please, do not pretend you didn't oppose to the word "victory" in the infobox before. Thirdly, the qualifiers "decisive" and "limited" are needed to emphasise some aspects of the victory: was the opponent totally destroyed, or it managed to force a victor to modify its initial goals. In this particular case, Soviet goals were not clear enough: the sources disagree if the USSR wanted to occupy Finland as whole. Therefore, we cannot say if Soviet goals were achieved or not. Therefore the word "victory" is quite appropriate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Paul, please go to the top of this page and read what I wrote four weeks ago. I have never denied that it was a Soviet victory, or suggested that we should remove those words from the infobox. Instead suggesting limited or partial Soviet victory. Thomas.W (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't, why this? In addition, don't use asteriscs. It makes a thread hardly readable, and it is not recommended by talk page guidelines.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Because of what it says in the edit summary: "since Paavo273 gave a very good reason for his edit it should stand until a consensus can be reached". Thomas.W (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, the victory is limited when the goals have been achieved only partially. Which goals had not been achieved by the USSR? (Please, note, the sources I read do not say full occupation of Finland was an ultimate Soviet goal).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote four weeks ago: the Soviet Union did not gain control over Finland, as outlined in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, neither through occupying Finland nor through pulling Finland into its sphere of control, that is what later became the Warsaw Pact. Thomas.W (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know about Finlandization? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not about getting control of Finland, but that discussion has to do with the Winter War. -YMB29 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

People, you are moving in circles again. This needs to stop. It will only stop if everybody, on both sides, starts working on the basis not of their own arguments but on the basis of reliable sources. Thomas W.: we've seen a whole lot of reliable sources that appear to be describing this outcome as a Soviet "victory", plain and simple. Now, it may be a big victory or a small victory, or a total victory or a limited victory, or whatever, but as long as our sources are calling it a victory there will be, prima facie, no reason to relativize that description in our infobox entry by giving it any of those extra attributes. The only way you will be able to make a convincing policy-based argument for what you are proposing is if you can prove not just that the victory was of a limited nature, but that a majority of reliable sources treat that "limitedness" as such a salient and important factor in it that they avoid calling it a victory without immediately adding that reservation. Your next edit to this page should be citing such sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@All participants of this discussion. A brief look at the Template:Infobox military conflict shows that the whole dispute is about a non-existing issue. The description of the "result" parameter says

" this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive"."

Introduction of non-standards terms is not recommended:

"In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". "

Therefore, the text one party insisted on directly contradicts to our standards. Clearly, "Soviet victory" is the most correct standard term. I think further discussion is senseless. If someone wants to continue, they should go to the Template:Infobox military conflict talk page and discuss a new standard parameter value "limited victory". If this idea is supported, we can renew this discussion, and follow the way outlined by Fut. Perf. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

PS. I changed the Winter War infobox accordingly. Anticipating possible accusations in a bias, I inform a pro-Finnish party that I am intended to fix such error in other articles too. Thus, I've already changed the Battle of Borodino infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox to "See the 'Aftermath' section" per Template:Infobox military conflict. --Nug (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That was also a Soviet victory...

Actually, the infobox result guideline is misleading. It looks like there is no consensus for that guideline[50], so any type of victory can be used, but in this article there is no reason to use any adjective for the victory. -YMB29 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, if you think the infobox page is misleading, try to fix it first. Unless it has been done, let's stisk with the standards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, if you saw fit to change Borodino, then applying similar criteria then I expect you would not object to a suitable modifier here. Proposals on how to communicate "limited" welcome. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say a modifier "limited" should be used in the Battle of Borodino infobox. In contrast, as I already said, we have to choose from "decisive victory", "victory" and "inconclusive". I changed Winter war and Borodino infoboxes to Soviet and French victories, accordingly, because the rules do not allow other modifiers. However, Nug removed the word "victory" from the infobox. I think he believes that pre-war Finnish borders didn't change as a result of the Winter war, and Finland managed to protect its territorial integrity. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thus this source describes the Winter War as follows:

"The reaction of the British public and press to the Soviet invasion of Finland was overwhelmingly hostile. Sympathy for Finland was strong. The Finns were seen as a small, embattled liberal state defying a totalitarian power. As the Finns battled against increasingly long odds, pressure grew on the British government to do something. Military supplies were sent to Finland along with some British volunteers. By March 1940 public pressure and pressure from the French forced the British government to agree to a wild plan to send British troops to Finland. In fact, the real purpose of this expedition was to have British and French troops occupy northern Norway and Sweden in order to deprive Germany of Swedish iron ore supplies. Only one brigade of British troops would cross the border into northern Finland, where they would have absolutely no impact on the fighting in the south. In any event, the Finnish military collapse in mid-March ruled out the necessity of military action." (Doerr. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 423-439)?

The source does not say "it was a Soviet victory", but it is clear it was.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, aren't you quoting re: the earlier conflict? On Borodino, apologies, misread edit history.VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)