Talk:Battle of Khalkhin Gol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Japanese military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Contents 1 Language and style 2 Soviet-Japanese Border War 3 An error? 4 refs 5 Moved material 6 The actual number of losses 7 Contradictions with Red Army article 8 Japanese Conclusions (redundant sentences) 9 YouTube links 10 Needs to be considerably shorter and more succinct 11 Minor edits 12 Lots and lots of edits

[edit] Language and style

There is some truly horrible writing in the article. While I appreciate that someone sits down and writes what is no doubt comberehensive, it is also at times almost unreadable. Someone seems to have decided to compress it by removing all definite articles, all pronouns and most of the consonants in some words. I tried editing two paragraphs, but much work remains. As it stands, parts of this reads like a military report written by a shell-shocked, tired private with a head wound.

The text was written by a japanese dude and well he dosent know english all that well :D

What puzzled me was the use of terms like "fgtr" and "lgt bmr" where just typing it out and making it much more readable would have been no more work. But ok. There is also a lot of duplication of information within the text. I guess we'll jhave to help this gentleman with his style, as he has worked so hard on the content.

The "dudes" name is "Torb37" and one more thing dont post new topics at the top of the page but at the bottom Robertoad 01:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet-Japanese Border War

This article is really about the entire war and ought to be titled Soviet-Japanese Border War of 1939. Alrees

It appears that this content is highly repetitive considering the entire body is duplicated in the article on the town. I think this is the proper place for it.

Also the article here states that this was blitzkreig. This is incorrect, the tactics he employed were entirely "classic", using tanks in place of cavalry in a traditional multi-prong frontal assault and encirclement. I'll change that.

[edit] An error?

"...then crossed the river on August 20 to attack the elite Japanese with three infantry divisions (70,000 men in all), massed artillery, a tank brigade, and the best planes of the Red Air Force."

"Of the 30,000 troops on the Japanese side, 8440 were killed and 8766 wounded."

70,000 or 30,000? Which one? And if two surrounded division were "wiped" out I think the KIA would be higher than 8,440? And I believe two different authors did those becasue the use of commas in one number and the lack of use in another. --CorranH96

It's true that this article is the combination of work by two authors, but those figures were written by one, using the principle of using commas for figures of 10,000 or more, and not for fewer. Read the article as saying that the three infantry divisions (70,000 men in all) was the figure for Zhukov's attacking force, not the Japanese; this does contradict the other figure of 57,000 men being deployed on the Soviet side which comes from the US Army document cited in the external links, although the discrepancy could be accounted for by the difference between the theoretical strength of the Soviet formations and their actual strength. I personally wouldn't use "wiped" as a description, but with over 50% of their strength killed or wounded they were severely mauled. -- Arwel 11:15, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From Soviet "History of WWII 1939-1945" Vol.2. Japanese losses were 61,000 killed, wounded, prisoners. Soviet losses were 18,500 wounded and dead. Also, it may be wise to include the effect of signing USSR-Germany non-aggression pact on mainly political side of it and as a cause for a political crisis in japan. May I thank authors involved in writing this article. Really nothing to pick on besides minor additions :) [xiaoxiong]

From Kwantung army 23rd & 7th Division participated in the battle. Their losses were immense quantity but 61,000 KIA is obviously overestimated. Official record is ; Participant from 6th Army 58925, KIA 7696, WIA 8647, MIA 1021, disease 2350. Note that some Japanese sournces question these figures. How's about in Coox's? I didn't check yet.- Ideru 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the following statement "The Marco Polo Bridge Incident also was a direct result of Japan concentrating on expanding into China after their rebuff into Mongolia at Khalkin-Gol. " under the "Influence on World War II" section has a factual error: the Marco Polo Bridge Incident happened in 1937, two year before the Battle of Khalkhin Gol. --mememe

[edit] refs

user:Vlad k added the following links (and some others) to "ext refs" section

• Operation Ohtsu or "B",The Japanese Army invasion against USSR
• Changkunfeng Hill
• White Russians Anticomunist Parties and Movements in Manchukuo

While done improperly, these terms are worth to keep in mind as topics of future articles, so I copied them here. Mikkalai 18:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved material

This is from Japanese strategic planning for mainland Asia (1905-1940). It really belongs here. I'll try to clean it up and merge some of it, over time. Charles Matthews 15:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This arose from border problems involving Japan-Manchukuo and the Soviet Union-Outer Mongolia. In April 1939, the Kwantung Army laid down regulations to guide frontline units with frontier troubles. "The principles for the Settlement of Soviet-Manchurian Borders Dispute" stipulated:

1. the basic policy is never to invade and never to be invaded.
2. if an enemy violates the frontiers, he must be wiped out at once.
3. where the borders are not precisely defined,the area defense commander will assume responsibility for demarcation and will so advise the front line units, in order to avoid disputes and to facilitate troops movements.
4. an intolerable dilema confronts border garrison units: they are considered cowardly if they are overly prudent in the actions, but will be called to task if they act too boldly or aggressively. In view of these apprehensions, it will hereafter be regarded as the responsiblity of higher headquarters to deal with the final consequences of situations which may arise from the positive actions of forward elements.

In the Nomonhan region of west Manchuria, the Japanese and the Manchoukoans contend that the border line ran along the Halha River (known in Russian as Khalkhin-Gol), which flows into Lake Buir Nor. the Soviets and Outer Mongoliams insisted however,that the frontier lay about 30 Kilometers east of Nomonhan Town.

on May 12,1939,some 700 outer mongolians horsemen crossed the Halha River.the Kwantung Army considered this action how one violation of Manchuokouan Frontier and repelled these raiders in conformity with the current Border Defense Guide Regulations mentioned above.the Outer Mongolians,however,received reinforcements,re-crossed the river ,and attacked again.in the course of sucesive engagements,both sides gradually build up their forces-the Russians and Outer Mongolians Vs. Japanese and Manchuoukoans.by the middle of August,greatly reinforced Strength confronted each other.Kwantung Army forces were build around the Lieutenant General Michitaro Komatsubara 23d Division,with Hq in Hailar,Tsingan Province,over 100 miles from the site of the figthing, the Soviets had three infantry divisions and five mechanized brigades, (430 tanks and same number of armored cars) while the Outer Mongolian posseses two Cavalry Divisions and Japan poses only the 3th Tank Regiment,unit of Yasuoka s Detached Armored Forces and somes armored Car units.(Yasuoka s Units poses the new Medium Tank Type 97 "Chi-Ha" ,just at Nomonhan incident,joining at Ligth Tank Type 95 "Ha-Go",the standart tank in this times).

before the arrival of Kwantung Army reinforcements,the soviet Army Launchered an offensive on August 20, and inflicted severe losses to Japanese.the Russians employed encircling tactics and made skillful use of their superior artillery and armor.of the august 15,140 men in the Komatsubara Force,of which the 23 Division was core,11,124 were killed or wounded in action.during the period between july 1 and september 16 which cover most the figth at Nomonhan casualities totalled no less than 73%,as a percentage of the force engaged.most of these losses incurred during Soviet August Offensive.by way of com parison,the percentage of casualities suffered by the Japanese during the bloody figthing in major battles of Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 had approximated:

• in 5 days of figth at Liaoyang:17%
• in 7 days of figth at Sha-ho:17%
• in 13 days of figth at Mukden:28%

still awaiting the arrival of reiforcements,the Kwantung Army girded for a counteroffensive,but on september 15 an armistice was arranged in Moscow,the troops stopped figthing next day.

among certain Japanese authorities,the most widespread opinion was that the nomonhan incident had been a maneouver instigated for Soviet Union in order to Restrain the Japanese Army from disposing of a "China Incident".after the negotiations of Nomonhan Armistice, the Newly appointed Commanding General Staff of Kwantung Army,General Yosihiro Umezu,took inmediatelly steps to prevent further border troubleshe pulled back to Japanese troops some what behind the frontiers where demarcation lines where not precise.a fundamental principle designed to prevent border incidents was General Umezu s order that,in the event of Soviet or Outer Mongolian penetration of at disputed area,only the Commander of Kwantug Army himself from Ryojun hq could to decide whether japanese migth counterattack. the new measures represented a fundamental revision of the old Border Defense Principles.bold and positive front-line attacks the enemy,which had been formerly stressed,were not to be sanctioned now. as a result,a more pacefull atmosphere thereafter prevailed in vici- nity of the frontiers.

The "Nomonhan Incident" gave the japanese Army an opportunity to realize the actual ability of Soviet Army. Seeings was Believing:

1. The bulk of Soviet Ground forces-Artillery and Armor- were far superior to the Japanese Army in terms of firepower and Mechanized equipment.
2. The Japanese were exeedingly surprised to Soviet Capability of transporting and Storing war materiel at battlefront 600 Kilometers away from a railroad Terminal (Japanese previously during Changkufeng battle saw the same situation, but Russians used one Fortified sistem of Highways between hills)
3. Having rid itself of the inflexiblity which characterized Czarist forces (see some similar situation in first figths of Lake Khasan Battle and Changkufeng incidents), the Soviet Army had proved able to change tactics from battle to battle. at begining of incident,for example, most of the Soviet Tanks were ignited by Gasoline bottles hurled at them by Japanese troops. a month later,however the Russians were using Crude oil-fuel or covering the tank chassis with wire netting. other cases of Soviet field improvisation were numerous.
4. The Soviet Army was more tenacious than had been expected.

After the end of the Nomonhan figthing, the Army High command set up a experts Commitee to investigate the whole incident. The commision was to evaluate the abilites of the Soviet Army, and reexamined the performances of Japanese Armaments and its operations against Russians( from this if obseved the deficience of low 57mm AT Cannon in Favour of Rapid Fire 47mm AT Cannon), where military equipment was concerned, japanese firepower proved far inferior.

Heated debates ensued about two basic alternatives: whether to effect a thoroughgoing reorganization, or whether to go only as far reinforcing current firepower materiel. The second alternative was selected. Lurking in the background of the controversy was the problem of abandoning the principle of hand-to-hand figthing (these principle are used with limited sucess during Lake Khasan first incursions in Soviet lands), tradition of the Japanese infantry. the higth Command did not awaken to remarkable progress of material potentials in modern warfare, but instead continued to esteem the superiority of spiritual figthing strength. this atitude could perhaps be traced to the fact that Japanese Army did not progress beyond comprehending firepower at levels of 1904-1905. it had never received a baptism of fire on the modern scale of World War I. now the second world war had just broken out, Japanese Military autorities admiring the brilliant sucess of German Army operations, began to cherish a desire to learn from german experiences rather tham from that of the Nomonhan Incident.this desire cristallized into the dispatch of the Yamashita Military Team to Germany.

The higth ranking officers of Army Staff of Kwantung Army Hq,were called to account for defeat of Nomonhan.in Tokio,Deputy Chief of general Staff Tetsuzo Nakajima and Chief of First Bureau Gun Hashimoto were ordered to retire from service.in Hsinking enforces retirements were imposed upon Commander of Kwantung Army in incidents days,Kenkichi Ueda,and your his Chief of Staff Renzuke Isogaya.despite the shake-up most of the staff officers in 1st section of Operations at Kwantung Army Hq officers,who were allegued to have been really responsible and to have exerted major influence during the Nomonhan incident-were transferred to sinecures. Moreover,the transferred officers afterwards obtained important posts withing Higth-Command unnoticed.Some of them,indeed ended up by occuping key positions within the Operational Bureau at Imperial Headquarters itself. in other terms the "Shake-up" was merely for sake of appareances,such were the workings of military administration.its generally acknowledged by those who held contemporaneous Higth Command post that officers responsible for the "Nomonhan Debacle" became strong advocate for launching the Pacific War(some of theirs pass to the band of "Strike South" Group of Japanese Navy).

[edit] The actual number of losses

Can anyone provide reference to the following claim?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, new documents about the battle changed the numbers considerably. The actual number of losses in the battle was 23,926, of whom 6,831 killed, 1,143 reported missing and 15,952 wounded. While the Red Army did win the battle, it was not as one-sided a battle as previously believed.

Igny 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Id Check with AMVAS's site: http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/battles/khalkhin_gol39.htm

Also Maps: http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/maps/maps1938_40.htm#Khalkhin_Gol Asiaticus 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions with Red Army article

I've noticed that the information (especially the body counts) for this battle given on the Red Army article disagrees dramatically with that available here. I'm not especially familiar with the incident, so I would appreciate it if someone with some knowledge of it would bring the two articles into agreement. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Contrib 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Conclusions (redundant sentences)

Theres two repeated sentences in this section:

"The Nomonhan Incident gave the Japanese Army an opportunity to realize the actual ability of the Soviet Army. Seeing was believing."

Appears twice in this section. Once at the top and again repeated at the bottom. I removed the last two redundant sentences but it was reverted - probably because the reverter Gipornm thought I just blanked it. I'll leave a remark here and in his user page. --Eqdoktor 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can put a comment in the text so editors will see it and readers won't. For example:

Jim.henderson 15:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

And now it is totally gone because user Detruncate deleted the last remaning sentence. So I am putting both back so to have a reserve and to stress what the Japanese learned and that they learnt it the hard way. Gipornm 13:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It needn't be said twice. Especially it needn't be said twice using the exact same sentences. If you must repeat the idea for inattentive readers, better to repeat it using different words. For example, "They had learnt the hard way what kind of army they were dealing with" would repeat the idea without repeating the words.

Jim.henderson 15:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gipornm, I see that you have reverted the changes to where it was originally - repeating the same two sentence at the end of the article. Looking at your past contributions and the message you left me in my talk page, I suspect that you may not be a native speaker of English. With that in mind; I have to point out: to repeat the exact same sentences twice in an article or essay is considered very bad style in English writing - even if the sentences are correct grammatically. It is something that is taught at the very basic level of English writing lessons. Redundancy is unnecessary. While I appreciate that in other languages, redundancy can be used to emphasize a point, its not needed in English as it is a very compact written language compared to other eastern scripts like Japanese or Chinese (that certain important points can be on different pages). Since the article is in the ENGLISH Wikipedia, we need to conform to a high standard of English writing.

If you do feel that the point bears repeating, I agree with Jim.henderson, use different words to describe the idea. For a fluent or native speaker/reader of the English language, seeing redundant sentences in the article is very jarring. Its an obvious and very basic (low level) mistake in English writing. I will correct the problem of redundancy, if anyone needs to add to the article to emphasize the lessons learnt by the Japanese facing a reinvigorated Soviet Red Army, feel free to do so.

PS: While we're at it, the phrase "Seeing is believing" has pronoun issues. "Who" is doing the seeing? The reader?, the Japanese? Japanese armed forces? Japanese leaders? the soviets? Taking that out too. --Eqdoktor 07:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole Wikipedia article needs to thoroughly cleaned up IMHO. Redundant sentences is the least of it's problems. I take it on faith that the facts presented are correct BUT the grammar, word structures and word choices themselves throughout the article is atrocious. It was obviously written by a non-native English speaker and there are far too many literal translations (from the Japanese? From the Russian?) that read very oddly. I guess thats a project for someone... --Eqdoktor 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the talk page, this article is rated start-class. That means, as a poor translation about an interesting topic, it still needs plenty of editing. No, in this context "Seeing is believing" does not need pronoun improvements. It is clear, and it is useful once, even if slightly trite. Not twice. After using it at the beginning of the section, one should either use a less idiomatic phrase at the end, or use a different aphoristic English idiom such as "Once bitten, twice shy." Besides, many other sections need more work than this one does. If you know more about English style than about the topic, it's a project for you.

Jim.henderson 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now it is gone again we need to keep it once, It was the Japanese who learnt. It was for them that seeing was believeing and you must have it in the text atleast once. You can see above in this talk page that alot of it was written by a japanese guy Torb37 Gipornm 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs to be considerably shorter and more succinct

As a casual user, I would highly recommend making this article much shorter. Limit it to historical/political information leading up to and caused by the battle as well as a brief overview of the battle itself. Most users will be looking to place this battle in a historical context. While impressive in it's level of detail, the current style makes the article difficult to use for this purpose. Point those who have interest in more detail towards outside resources. Most readers will be casual IPs, just like me.

A great deal has been added to the original article, particularly in the detail of the battle, which has resulted in considerable duplication of information, e.g. linking to Gen Komatsubara's name three times in just a few paragraphs (and some direct contradictions, such as where the disputed frontier ran). While I take it on trust that the information provided is generally correct, the article needs a thorough copyedit for style, spelling, and wikilinking of dates. -- Arwel (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Many battle articles are much longer, including Austerlitz and Gettysburgh. Long can be good, if it is well organized, which this one is not. This is one of those wars which had only one interesting battle, and the original editorial scheme seems to have been to write separate articles on the war and the battle. Perhaps someone less competent in the subject matter, and more competent in editing, can make it neat by carrying out this project, moving the political and historical background to a new war article and leaving the actual combat in this one. Each smaller article then would be easier to straighten out.

Jim.henderson 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, don't do that. There's no reason to make a separate article for the "war" and the "battle", because effectively there was no "war". There was some skirmishing and sparring, then a full-scale battle at Khalkin Gol, and that was it. I'll get around to checking this article out sometime for editing, but there really should be one article, about the battle at Khalkin Gol, in the World War II category. Vidor 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

I've run through this piece correcting minor spelling and grammar errors as well as resolving UK/US spelling inconsistencies. As to the content, I found it interesting but cumbersome. It's not an easy read and there do appear to be some inconsistencies with numbers etc. Referring to the first entry at the top of this page, I'm still trying to find the definition of comberehensive. People who live in glass houses etc...Greenglen 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you resolved the US/UK spelling the wrong way. According to MOS, editors are supposed to use spelling "used by the first major contributor". If you look at the article's history, the first variant of the article where US/UK differences appear uses the US spelling. Other than that, thank you for your copyediting efforts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lots and lots of edits

This article was a complete mess. Paragraph after paragraph of poorly written material, repetition, boring lists of airplanes, etc. I have been hacking out lots and lots of stuff to try and boil it down to a good punchy article that summarizes the actions of the battle. Am not finished with it yet. After I'm done clearing out all the mess I might use that Army analysis in External Links to reintroduce more detail about the actual battle itself. Research for this article is a little problematic because the Khalkin Gol battle is still mostly unknown in the west. Vidor 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are nothing short of pure and absolute vandalism, you have no right to delete 99% of the article just because you do not like what it says, all your vandalistic deletions have been restored and please do not continue in your quest for destruction in this article. Just because you find something "boring" does not give you the right to delete the whole article, stop this insanity now!Handsthere 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Handsthere, as long as you can't give rational explanations as to why specific parts removed are important to the understanding of the topic, your reverts are unlikely to stand. The article is a mess, and an uncommented list of tank types (just as an example) doesn't help the reader to understand the outcome of the battle. If you are willing to contribute to turning this into a readable text, then you're very welcome. But just calling any change "vandalism" won't get you anywhere. Please assume good faith and bring some of your own. --Latebird 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the place to ADD information not remove it, people can not remove pages and pages of information, that is just plain vandalism. If something is "too long" then create a sub article and move it there, but to delete all the information is just pure and absolute destruction. This is a military article written about a military battle and that is why it is written in a military tone. If the problem is the tank list then move the tank list into a "tank list of tanks in the battle of khalkhin gol", but not just the list was removed tones and tones of information, good information, solid information, reliable information was removed. Other military campaigns spanning the same time frame have much longer articles. Just look at the invasion of Poland it is a little more then a month long campaign which is a bit shorter then this battle and yet the article there is much longer and has many times more sub articles. Handsthere 10:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place to add relevant information, and to remove everything else. it is NOT an "indiscriminate collection of information". Not every detail is important enough to keep. This article is not written in a "military tone" (and it shouldn't). It is written without a concept of relevance, without reasonable structure, and with a lot of redundancy.

Vidor has explained what he plans to do to improve this situation. Accusing him of "vandalism" after that explanation is very bad style and unnecessarily hostile. If you want to help improve this article, then please explain why the details he removed are important, and how they are "reliable". The relative volume of other articles is not relevant.

If you want to salvage the tank list, feel free to create a seperate article with it, but expect it to be deleted by other editors as listcruft. Personally, I don't see how this list helps anyone understand the history and outcome of this battle, so you'll have to answer the question of noteability. --Latebird 11:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Latebird understands what I'm getting at. Khalkin Gol was hugely important, and it deserves a good article. It doesn't deserve long, pointless lists of kinds of tanks and artillery. The article should be an account of what occurred, not a roll call of weapons. Handsthere should create a Wikipedia article on Japanese military weaponry during World War II if he feels the information is important. Maybe even break it down by which tanks were used at which times and in which theaters. But don't go listing lots of weapons. Should the article have a list of all types of firearms that Japanese officers and men carried? Further, besides being boring, the article is badly written; there are redundancies (check out the second redundant sentence saying "This battle is known as the Nomohan incident in Japan" in the body of the article) and plain bad English that sounds like it was written by a non-native speaker.

My plan for the article is to edit out all the crap, and then base it off the Army paper listed in the external links, emphasizing the sequence of events, as any article should. The handicap, as I wrote above, is that there isn't a lot of reference material out there. If anybody can point me to additional internet material similar to the Army paper, or has material themselves to use for editing, then please do so. But let's not list tanks. Vidor 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop the deleting you are not just deleting the weapons list but 99,99% of the article. What you find as crap I find very intersting you have no right to destroy the information so stop the deletion. Stop editing this article leave it alone. I can never allow such a huge amount of good information to be destroyed because you think it is crap. Go and destroy some other article but not this one. You find this article boring then leave it alone you think it is crap then leave it alone you have no bloody right in destroying real, good and solid information because you find it boring, your plan might be to destroy this article but then my plan is to keep it alive. Handsthere 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Stop the deleting"--No.--"you are not just deleting the weapons list but 99,99% of the article."--This is obviously false. I have not deleted 99.99% of the article; I have EDITED and streamlined the article, because it's horribly written.--"I can never allow such a huge amount of good information to be destroyed"--Pretty sure you aren't in charge of Wikipedia, so you aren't in a position to allow or disallow anything.--"You find this article boring then leave it alone"--No, I think I'll make it better instead.--"your plan might be to destroy this article but then my plan is to keep it alive"--Why don't you calm down? You have done NOTHING to improve this article. Have you fixed the many grammar errors? No. Have you deleted the redundant information, like the two different sections both purporting to examine the "aftermath" or "influence" of the battle? No. You have done zero to make this article better. All you've done is erase the work I've put into it. Read this discussion page. Several users for some time have been saying that the article was badly written and needed editing. I've chosen to do that. Have you? Vidor 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Handsthere, so far you haven't given us a single rational argument why the article must stay exactly as it is now. Secondly you haven't responded to any of our very specific arguments why it should change. And thirdly you make obviously incorrect statements in this discussion. In other words, you're acting in a clearly disruptive manner with no constructive input. If you don't change your behaviour, then that may easily get you banned from editing at Wikipedia. Please work with your fellow editors, not against them. --Latebird 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No one said it must stay exactly the same way as it is now, but deleting facts and removeing them forever just because someone finds them "boring" is wrong, re write the sections that are bad but do not destroy the information in them. It is as simple as that, if something is to long then make a sub artcile about it but do not delete it.Handsthere 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What I have done is keept information in the article unlike you Vidor who just deletes. If the grammar is poor then fix it but do not delete the whole article. It is you have have made zero to make this article better I on the other hand have done a million by not deleteing it all. The only thing you have chosen to do is destroy, destroy and destroy. If you can not make the article better or if the only way you can make it better is by destroying it then go away. Handsthere 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You continue to say things that are not true. I have written quite a bit as well as deleting the excess and badly written material. You evidently are not paying any attention to what I am doing, but instead are repeatedly coming back to the article and wiping out any changes I make. Saying all I have done is "destroy, destroy, destroy" is, frankly, a lie. Vidor 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we actually have a reliable source for the weapons list and the other trivia? --Latebird 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. Vidor 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

FINALLY DONE with the editing. Maybe somebody with access to the Coox book, which I do not have at this time, can add more to the article or lessen the dependence on the Army paper. I sincerely hope Handsthere actually reads the article instead of continuing to revert it. Vidor 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Handsthere's list of units engaged, I think I found the source it came from. Here is the home page, and here is a description of the battle which contains long lists of units engaged, very similar to the ones that were in the article. I don't have the academic expertise to judge this source's reliability, seeing as how it appears to be an amateur translation of a Russian paper (although the map section is excellent), but in any case I still don't think the lists of weapons and units add anything to the article. Vidor 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That site looks like the private hobby of someone, despite the enormous amount of work they must have put into it. It's a nice link, but I don't think we should treat it as a reliable source. This is what the author has to say about it: Some figures may vary, as I take them from different sources and unfortunately I can't pay time to analyze each one to make sure they are 100% correct. Except some cases I try to use more or less believable sources. In other words, we have no idea where the information actually comes from or how reliable it is. --Latebird 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)