Talk:Continuation War: Difference between revisions

"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: [1][2][3][4]

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)

contents of discussion that was moved to the mediation rfc page

copying your complaints/discussion that you moved to your mediation page, to here: <Begin quote> 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)

Ok, thanks for protecting it.

Can you also change the result back to what it was before all the reverting today?

Yes, I am aware of WP:The Wrong Version, but I don't think it is fair that a result that had consensus (even Wanderer602 agreed with it) should be changed through tag ::::team edit warring. -YMB29 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose YMB29's description of what has happened as "tag team edit warring" as I have no connection whatsoever to Paavo273, and see that claim as only an ::::attempt to shift the blame to someone else. Because the only who has been consistently edit warring, and at the same time refusing to engage in a serious discussion, is ::::YMB29 himself. So I suggest that Lord Roem or another administrator read the discussion, or rather lack of it, in the last two sections on Talk:Continuation War. Where ::::YMB29's refusal to engage in a discussion, refusal to point to a consensus that he/she repeatedly refers to (a consensus that apparently doesn't even exist) and destructive ::::tactics (trying to wear "opponents" down and make them leave) can be clearly seen. Thomas.W (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You came in there claiming that there is no consensus, even when other users explained to you that there is.

It is up to you to try to establish a new consensus if you don't like the current one. You should not makes changes until there is an agreement on the talk page.

All you had to offer is your OR on why you don't like the result.

You backed off, seeing that you had no support, but when Paavo273 started edit warring today, you jumped in to help, which is tag teaming... Where were you ::::before with your arguments? -YMB29 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have searched the archives without finding a consensus for "Soviet victory" vs "partial/limited Soviet victory", but have found none. And I have ::::repeatedly asked you to point me to the consensus you are constantly referring to, with no luck. Which leads me to believe that there simply is none. In addition to that my ::::attempt to start a discussion about it, in order to build a consensus for or against was totally ignored, apart from you accusing me of original research, just like you did ::::now. But pointing to the fact that the Soviet Union was not able to achieve control over Finland, which had been "given" to the SU in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is not ::::OR. As for Paavo273's well referenced contributions being "edit warring" that is your opinion, an opinion I don't share. Thomas.W (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if you could not find the previous discussions, this is not an excuse to start edit warring to push the result you want. You have to prove that ::::your result is more accurate than the previous one and establish consensus.

You "pointing to the fact that the Soviet Union was not able to achieve control over Finland, which had been "given" to the SU in the Molotov-Ribbentrop ::::Pact" is OR. You relate what you perceive the pact meant to the result of this war. You yourself cannot make such a conclusion.

You provided no sources and made no edits until someone else started reverting the result... -YMB29 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the movement of this new dispute onto this page. I think ::::this is becoming way too conduct-based for this mediation to continue, proven by my need to protect the page. Now, if the two initial parties are agreeable to their ::::addition, I'm fine with it, but I feel this is moving to different territory. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I just thought an admin should do something to stop the tag team edit warring, and I hoped that you could restore the original result that everyone actually agreed ::::with before those two users came along. -YMB29 (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as the mediation, other users should not be allowed to post here if they don't help resolve the dispute.

Are you ready to continue? -YMB29 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue, yes, but I haven't seen Wanderer post in some time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC) <End quote> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Continuation_War

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paavo273 (talk • contribs) Paavo273 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? I just posted few days ago to this very talk page (and two days ago to wiki in general)... - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(copied from rfc page on 2 February by Paavo273) (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

End copy___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.[5]

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.[6]

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...[7]

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...[8]

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.[9]). 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.[10] - 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) [11]

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) [12]

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) [13]

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) [14]

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) [15]

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) [16]

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) [17]

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) [18]

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) [19]

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) [20]

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) [21]

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)

Leave the result alone. There was clearly no consensus; you never could point one out, and W602, the only other credible representative of the non-Kremlin side who has participated in discussion in recent days or weeks, rejects your view. Maybe you're confused between consensus among editors and *consensus of sources*, a concept you just raised in the Rfc talk.  ??? Also, please remove your dubious and OR tags. The OR tag amounts to vandalism (assuming a tag can amount to such). Paavo273 (talk) 20:51, 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)

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)

Copying remarks on point that YMB29 posted in an obscure place in the Rfc talk, but not here.

So getting back to this, the result has to represent the consensus among sources, and a 5:1 ratio in favor of sources supporting strategic Soviet victory means there is consensus that it was a Soviet victory.

The logical solution would be to set the result to what the majority of sources say and leave the minority view in the article text. -YMB29 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

New Thread. Please rename when/if this has a main subject

I would vote for user Whiskey's suggestion: stalemate

Recopied from lost area above: Leave the result alone. There was clearly no consensus; you never could point one out, and W602, the only other credible representative of the non-Kremlin side who has participated in discussion in recent days or weeks, rejects your view. Maybe you're confused between consensus among editors and *consensus of sources*, a concept you just raised in the Rfc talk.  ??? Also, please remove your dubious and OR tags. The OR tag amounts to vandalism (assuming a tag can amount to such). Paavo273 (talk) 20:51, 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. Over a long period of time, 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. Also, I don't remember any troops surrendering. What I recall is the Finns stopped fighting and the Soviets 24 hours later.

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) 21:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)