Talk:Finnish invasion of Ladoga Karelia

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / Nordic / World War II B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	World War II task force

Comment

All text used in the initial formation of this artice was split off from the continuation war article. (RookZERO 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Recent edit

@Wanderer602: the article has been uncited since 2007; what's the proposal to address this? K.e.coffman (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can add there to the bibliography section several books right now. However to add actual book references (with page references that is) will take a little while longer. Blanking the page is however not the solution. Requesting references would have been. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such references have been requested since 2007; pls see:

K.e.coffman (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough just because a page happens to be on a watchlist doesn't mean it would indicate a need for references on that page. Unless some one requests for them that is. Please see WP:BLANK - it ought to be quite clear from the beginning that blanking the page is not a solution, just part of the problem. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless some one requests for them that is -- I'm not following: the citations have been requested, 10 years ago. Please note that the tag states: "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed" which I did. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old markings in articles do not show in the watchlist. So the lack of sources is rather difficult to notice without some one first commenting upon it. Also you didn't challenge the unsourced material, instead you just deleted it, which is against WP rules. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Against which rules? Besides, if an editor wishes to cite the material, it can easily be done by looking up the article history, or the content moved to userspace to work on. What's the rush to restore the material? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rush with deleting the article content before at least first giving notice in the talk page? - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10 years is plenty of chances. Also please see WP:BURDEN; or is there a disagreement with the requirement that the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"? K.e.coffman (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is based on the rather odd assumption that every one would have been automatically aware of the tag. How exactly do you assume that to be the case? And how exactly does that absolve from first commenting and discussing the matter on the talk page?`- Wanderer602 (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

"Finnish reconquest of Ladoga Karelia" does not appear to be a common name for this operation, as I was not able to find anything in Google books with that search. I was able to find

link.

using a broader search: link.

Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finns rarely named their operations so you are not likely to find any. That is the reason for the descriptive name. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the descriptive name? I've not been able to find much at all under "Finnish reconquest of Ladoga Karelia". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map

If some one would be able to provide a map for this it would be great. Alternatively if some one can provide me a base map of the region that would be fine too. I can draw how Finns attacked per written sources but i unfortunately do not have any sort of base map for that. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to titles without dates (non-admin closure) samee converse 20:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish reconquest of Ladoga Karelia (1941) → Finnish invasion of Ladoga Karelia (1941) – Per WP:NPOV & WP:COMMONNAME; invasions and occupations are not described as "conquests" or "reconquests" en.wiki. Please see the related RM discussion here: Talk:Finnish invasion of East Karelia (1941)#Requested move 16 June 2018. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support a move to Finnish invasion of Ladoga Karelia (without the date). The action was a recovery, not a reconquest. (The area became a part of Finland way back in 1812, and not as a result of a conquest, although "reconquest" is often used to mean "recovery by conquest"). No matter, as the nominator notes, invasions and occupations are not described as "conquests" or "reconquests" at Wikipedia. The disambiguation date is not needed as there has been no other Finnish invasion of Ladoga Karelia. While we're at it, how about moving Finnish reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus (1941) by the same rationale? — AjaxSmack 22:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support both per Ajax. Srnec (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving both, good explanation by AjaxSmack, and no date needed. The relevant policy here is WP:NDESC on how to do neutral descriptive titles. In a way though, stating that it was a "recovery" is helpful because the Soviet Union only held the territory for a year, but "invasion" is neutral as well. Invasions can be either liberations, acts of aggressions or something in between (btw currently the lede of this article does a poor job of explaining the background). The only minor issue I have with the word "invasion" is that the word usually refers to conquests of whole countries or territories, whereas Ladoga Karelia, East Karelia and the Karelian Isthmus are just sub-regions that held importance in these adjacent military operations. This book uses the term "Ladoga Karelia offensive" so that's an alternative. --Pudeo (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the date must stay. This article's definition of Ladoga Karelia definitely includes Olonets (Aunus) and so there was a prior Finnish invasion of this area in 1919. Srnec (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support moving Finnish reconquest of the Karelian Isthmus (1941) as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Operation Barbarossa

I restored the sentence: [1]; my rationale was: "Finland is listed as one of the belligerents at the Operation Barbarossa article". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then the part with regards to the Continuation War needs to be included too. Otherwise you are deliberately introducing bias to the article. After all the operation was not under German command but instead fully under Finnish command. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]