Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:16, 1 February 2013

	Continuation War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 3, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / Nordic / Russian & Soviet / World War II 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not 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 Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Finland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. European history This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 19, 2009 and September 19, 2010.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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.

The tags were removed from the article for the mediation, 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[REDACTED] 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. -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. 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)

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, Misplaced Pages 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, " 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)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class Nordic military history articles
• Nordic military history task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• B-Class Finland articles
• Top-importance Finland articles
• All WikiProject Finland pages
• Unassessed European history articles
• Unknown-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (September 2010)