User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 6

25th Rifle Division

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

Russian: С Новым Годом!
English: Happy New Year!

Done. And my apologies for this having taken so long, I've been keeping busy with Ukraine. Best regards, Bogdan ^що? 20:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. The 25th 'Chapayev' and the 25th Guards 'Budapest-Sinelkov' may easily be confused. If you have any info on it (presumably in Russian), just send it to me, and I will be more then happy to translate it. Cheers, Bogdan ^що? 21:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. But I noticed the page a while ago, I just hated seeing the huge copyright infringement sign. Can't we leave the one sentence article until all is sorted out, or do "procedures" prohibit it? Regards, Bogdan ^що? 01:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, thus far I've found (link deleted because it was making the talk page not function) bit of info at army-guide.com. But unfortunately, I won't be of much help for either this or the Soviet army stuff for the next week or so. I'll be relatively busy for that period of time, although I'll try to help out when I can. Bogdan ^що? 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Buckshot, thanks for the notice. I'll get to work on that in the new year (January 1). Also, I was looking around the ru-WP (their categories are a mess), and I found 383-я стрелковая дивизия and 8-я воздушная армия. Might as well do those while I'm at it. I wish you all the best to you in the new year! Bogdan ^що? 03:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fourth generation jet fighter

Since you're adamant about reverting this, you might want to consider actually participating in the discussion about it. Up to this point, a good case has been made for removing this section, and though there's been several editors who've reverted, no one has bothered to go and actually discuss it. Rather than edit war, how about talking about the issue on the talk page? AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to have been lengthy discussion on the talk page. It seems to me that most people (including myself) think "exercise reports" are misleading, taken out of context, and are irrelevant to the entry. Please do not revert again.70.18.1.60 (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Russia

I found problems trying to incorporate some more of Russia's problems into the article and it has proved difficult to find sources. I think the 2 that should be incorporated are corruption and poverty/rich/poor gap. Corruption - where is it present, how does it affect the economy, and what is the government doing to combat it. Poverty - where is it present. Crime - don't really think that belongs in this article. How many country articles do you see with a crime section (granted, Russia has above average levels of crime). Not to mention the difficulties getting statistics and then getting other countries statistics and breaking it down into per capita statistics, where do we find facts about organised crime, etc. The other suggestions (housing, state monopolies) should not be incorporated into the article. Karna also mentioned lagging behind of rural areas but the economy section already states "While the huge capital region of Moscow is an affluent metropolis, much of the country, especially indigenous and rural communities in Asian Russia, lags significantly behind." Further discussion on rural Russia would require statistics (eg average salary) as opposed to generalisations like they don't have access good amenities, government, etc. Thanks for the comments.--Miyokan (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06 - I request that you please examine my recent edits to Russia; I have endeavored to slash the "History" section and contain the size/neutrality problems. Shiva_eVolved 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buck, believe me it is not an issue of national pride for me not to include information about organised/state monopolies/housing, as I have added many of Russia's problems into the article already. Housing is part of the wider infrastructure problem which the government achknowledged and stated that $1 trillion will be invested over the next 10 years. With regards to Gazprom, Karna wrote that “the removal of Khodorkovsky and concentration of state power in media and such industries raised concerns about free-markets” which is not really true. It is well known that the arrest of Khodorkovsky has undeterred investors from Russia. Investors have been undeterred it seems from the consolidation of state industries. The whole ‘using energy to manipulate politics’ is pure speculation largely by western media and the speculative discussion doesn't belong in this article and should stay on the energy superpower article. Organised crime-really like all the mafias not much information is known about their operations which are largely secret. It is not really known how much business they control so it doesn’t really apply to the economy section. And even according to that article by your co-worker, “the extreme lawlessness (bespredel) of the early and mid-1990s is finished” so it is clear they don't play as large a role in Russian society anymore. I just don’t think that discussion of the mafia belongs in this article, similarly as the Japan, Italy, and United States sections do not have mention about their respective mafias. Add it to the Russian mafia article. As I said, I think that corruption and poverty should be covered.--Miyokan (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Please see my recent addition to the article which discusses privatization/role of the mafia/arrest of Khodorkovsky.--Miyokan (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, according to the Carnegie Moscow Centre, the percentage of draft dodgers in Russia is 25% rather than the 90% you inserted [1]. According to this article, during Russia's latest draft, in spring 2006, the army inducted 124550 new recruits. The Defense Ministry officially reported 17000 draft-dodgers [2]. --Miyokan (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buck, you have a inaccurate view of the Khodorkovsky event (I notice that most of your knowledge comes from western media). Let me give you the real picture. In Russia it's just not possible to become and especially to remain a billionaire without strong connections to the very top in the Kremlin. Yeltsin relied on the oligarchs to help him narrowly win the 1996 presidential election (the oligarchs controlled all the media and donated to Yeltsin's party). In return, they were granted various privileges (such as not having to pay taxes). After Yeltsin resigned, the oligarchs thought that they would have the same agreement with Putin that they did with Yeltsin, and sought to control him. However, Putin would not be controled and said to them that he would not take away their illegitimately-gained wealth but said that the era of oligarch control of the country was over. He made an unofficial agreement with the oligarchs whereby he would not prosecute them if they agreed to pay taxes and not meddle in politics. Khodorkovsky was not pursued because, as you said, "he would not allow his oil & gas operations to be directed/merged by the Kremlin as it wished". Even in the western media it is believed that he was pursued because he ignored the warning and sought to retain political influence over the country. They were not "trumped up" charges at all. None of Russia's billionaires aquired their wealth through legitimate means. Khodorkovsky was not some innocent victim as he and many western media try to make him out to be. Russian oligarchs didn't invent any new technology, they didn't build new industries, but they just took over the existing industries and technologies and made profit from their exploitation and the details of Khodorkovsky's shady business dealings came out at his trial. While Khodorkovsky was singled out for prosecution, he was guilty of the charges, and that is the price he paid for continuing to meddle in politics.--Miyokan (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buck, how did you possibly come to the conclusion that I effectively confirmed Russia is a dictatorship?--Miyokan (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buck, regardless of Yeltsin using the oligarchs, I believe he was a true democrat and was forced to use the oligarchs, otherwise, the Communists would have come back to power. This sentence, "In Russia it's just not possible to become and especially to remain a billionaire without strong connections to the very top in the Kremlin." - does not mean that Moscow is 'friends' with the oligarchs, at least not since the Putin era. I said it wrongly. BBC summarises what I was trying to get across to you in my last message nicely - "Some analysts believed that the then president, Boris Yeltsin, allowed their (the oligarchs) influence to extend too far into the political field but President Putin soon made it clear that there was no question of that with him in charge." I fail to see how any of this means authoritarian government.--Miyokan (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not all as simple as you put it Buck and I won't correct you on your various statements except this one.

"I think most politically interested people in NZ would argue that elections alone - especially if they have large number of irregularities, take a look at the OSCE reports"

While the elections may not have been 'fair', no observers have stated that the elections were rigged and the results of the elections correspond almost exactly to the results of independent polls taken before the election.

There is no doubt that Russia is not a democracy as NZ is. I fully agree with Alvaro Gil-Robles's statement that "The fledgling Russian democracy is still, of course, far from perfect, but its existence and its successes cannot be denied." Because of the anarchy of the Yeltsin years, Putin concentrated on establishing law and order in the country. In order to do so he needed to consolidate some power. People need a job, a good wage, decent standard of living before 'democracy' can develop into the one like NZ has. Furthermore, Putin is retiring of his own accord, despite the fact that he is immensely popular and could change the term limits if he wanted to. Does this sound like a dictator to you? (I am not even going to comment on the ridiculous western media that Putin will somehow control his successor).--Miyokan (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

49th/59th Guards Division

Hey Buckshot, I'll look at the data again and modify as appropriate. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I had it listed incorrectly as the 56th Guards Rifle Division. Good catch! Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated the 59th GRD page with information from samsv.narod.ru that indicates the 59th participated in the Debrecen Operation (as far as I can understand the Russian that is). Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fourth generation jet fighter

He's already been blocked, as far as I can tell. Is there anything else that needs to be done, at this point? Kirill 16:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

RKKA in GPW

G'day, No doubt you will soon see my additions of the Red Army OOB for operation Barbarossa. It will probably have a few redlinks to Armies, Fronts, Directions and Military Districts. I noticed that you do this as a project, so was wondering if you would like to work together because I would like to eventually build up articles for all these entities in their own right and not just a list.--Mrg3105 (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945

Buckshot06, On splitting the page I see two ways. One would be to split the "rifle" forces and the other forces, another would be to split off either the artillery/AA units or the tank and cavalry units. Or, all the different categories could be moved to their own pages with the main page as a sort of switching station. It is kind of a shame, I've never seen another page on the internet with so many thumbnail historical sketches about the Red Army in one place. W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, a split of the rifle divisions vs the others sounds like a sound way to do it. Since the page is your creation, the decision on when to restructure it should be yours. I'll adapt as the change occurs. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but do you know about this site http://guides.rusarchives.ru/browse/guidebook.html?bid=121&sid=92105 ?

Its in Russian. --Mrg3105 (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Buckshot06, just tell me if you need any assist, ok. I like to help, but at this stage I can see that I had better stick to one thing at a time until I get more Wiki-wise :o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The most help at the moment would be translating the odd bits of Russian that I've left untranslated in many articles - thanks for the assist at Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 by the way. We are also missing an article on 3rd Shock Army, yet there is a Ru-wiki article at

Hi Buckshot06, one question on a reference note placed into the text for the 128th Mountain RD. The reference mentions the reorganization of the 83rd RD into the 128th Guards RD, perhaps the note would be better placed with the 83rd or 128th Guards text vice that of the 128th Mountain RD? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Buckshot06, I've finished with the data on NKVD divisions. This represents the last systematic data exploitation I can make for the page. Anything else will be minor edits. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the second set of WikiChevrons - now I have a set for both sleeves of my tunic! Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviating Fronts

Buckshot06, do you have a problem with me adding Front names as abbreviations. I have a problem fitting full names into operations tables when Soviet is added. BTW, I looked at some of the articles you created, and you do nice work. --Mrg3105 (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

collaboration with Ru:Wiki

So much for that tag of multilingual collaboration. Have you sen the ru: article for the 10th Guards tank division? It doesn't even call it 10th in the title!!!--Mrg3105 (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Buckshot06. You asked me to contact soldat.ru for permission to use info from their forums. The reply from site owner (the much respected) Mr. Ivlev is below

Здравствуйте!

GC> Здравствуйте,

GC> Я хотел бы узнать или вы даёте разрешение на использование той информации что ставится на форумах?
GC> С разрешением, использование будет после перевода на Английский на Википедия.

GC> Всего наилучшего в новом году,

GC> Грэг

Материал может быть использован Вами с указанием на наш сайт как источник информации. Желательна точная привязка адреса к месту расположения информации на сайте. К примеру, на Форуме, как и у любой страницы сайта, у каждого сообщения есть свой уникальный адрес.

С уважением,
И.И.Ивлев.

info@soldat.ru

Material can be used by you with the indication of our site as information source . The precise linking to the address location of information on the site is desirable. For example, on the forum, as any page of site, in each piece of information has its unique address.

With the respect,
I.I.Ivlev.
Cheers-- mrg3105mrg3105 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

13th Army

I discovered something quite interesting while fixing this up. After the war this Army was reportedly commanded by Pliyev in L'vov. The man was one of he best manoeuvre commanders in the Red Army. He commanded one of several cavalry-mechanised groups. So why put him in L'vov in an all rifle Army? My guess is that he was supervising reorganisation of what later became the OMGs of the GSFG.--Mrg3105 (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

First Shock Army

Hi Buckshot06, I started a page on the First Shock Army. Please contribute as you have time. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Hi Mr. Wison. Before you start 3rd Shock Army, please check with me as I'm putting information together. Should be ready in a couple of days though. Cheers--Mrg3105 (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Buckshot06, 1st Shock Army as a title works for me. I think both cases may present in Wiki articles on Soviet armies at the moment, but you're correct as to how the Russians denoted it. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Marshals of the Soviet Union

Ahm, Buckshot06, Marshal rank was not introduced in 1940 since it existed before hand. Its continued use was affirmed in the same proposal by Voroshilov to change other general ranks.--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. In fact when I read that, I had a bit of a struggle with the word myself. You see the rank cold not be confirmed because it was already in existence and being awarded. It could not be recommended because a) for above reason, and b) only Stalin could do that. Voroshilov's recommendation was therefore worded very carefully. He affirmed its use :o) I put it down to our mutual inexperience with communicating to people who could have you shot the next day. Interesting how that idea appeals to me in the context of Wikipedia editing ;o) I can provide you with the wording in the original if you like.--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the award Buckshot06, but probably not entirely deserving given the couple of 'friendly fire' incidents and one 'self inflicted wound' ;o) Maybe something humbler like a medal for duty ;o) Usually in the military they start you low on awards (like a hot meal and a nights sleep) to give you something to look forward to ;o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moving Military of the Soviet Union

Ok, done. You might want to take a look at why Military specialist redirects there, incidentally; that seems a bit strange, but maybe I'm missing something obvious. Kirill 01:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was expecting that there'd be a separate article for it, or at least something more specifically related to ranks that could be linked to; as it is, it gives the feeling that something got lost somewhere. But it's a minor matter in any case. Kirill 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Smolensk (2nd)

Hi Buckshot06. Please have a look at the article and see what I did. I ruined an FA article. My bad :-( --Mrg3105 (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I'll go and fix it up, it not a big deal.--Mrg3105 (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.--Mrg3105 (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)