Battle of Stalingrad was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
The second last and third last paragraphs in the 'Casualties' should be removed, as they aren't adding anything relevant to the section, but rather provide a blow by blow account of the performance of Romanian tanks in the battle of Stalingrad. MaillardReactionary (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, doing that now. Also removing the Romanian-specific notes in the lead template. Riposte97 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beevor, p. 372 references a German account, describing actions in late January 1943, not during the early stages of the Battle of Stalingrad, that mentions waves of Soviet infantry attacking, but also that the Soviet infantry took the German position through outflanking it (certainly not a typical human wave tactic). He doesn't explicitly use the term human wave in authorial voice, which means it is original research to argue that the Soviets used human wave tactics, and it is undue to extrapolate one veteran's account to the entire battle (or even consider it accurate). Glantz's much more recent three volume history of Stalingrad does not describe Soviet tactics as human waves, and many Soviet memoirs refer to the Germans as advancing in waves as well. In addition Beevor's work has been noted as failing to use sufficient source material from the Soviet perspective, as critically noted in Alexander Hill's review of Stalingrad.Kges1901 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Hill's review, Beevor is noted as still having used Soviet archive data, even if limited in use in his chapters. Furthermore, he is credited with using a good amount of German archive data. Furthermore, just because one author does not mention it as such, does not mean it was or did not occur that way. Both Beevor's account from the German soldier, and Craig's description of human wave attacks being used are credible enough to be used on the page. A more recent article from the Telegraph describes wave tactics being used, even if the author is not a historian and is merely a commentator. Furthermore, the archive link used one German soldier's account of Soviet soldiers attacking in waves. Beevor's account from the German soldier on page 372 is quite clear in that it was a human wave assault, with it saying "the first wave was killed or left lying there, the second also, and then a third wave came. In front of our position the Soviet dead piled up and served as a sort of sandbag wall for us." Before that account, "a mass of snow-suited infantry was charging towards them". With all the sources put together, and two authors describing them as such, the line should remain. If German soldiers also used those tactics, it should be mentioned. It is not an extrapolation if the information provided gives accounts of what soldiers did, no matter how large or small. Reaper1945 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beevor is dated because he wrote in the late 1990s, before a lot of key Soviet documents were available. Craig is similarly dated because he wrote in the 1960s and used only German sources, which makes his account inherently biased. Although Beevor's work is more impartial than Craig's this doesn't change the fact that Beevor does not directly state that Soviet forces used human wave attacks. It is textbook WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and a violation of WP:PRIMARY to extrapolate anything from the words of one German veteran, especially because veterans often exaggerate the amount of enemy soldiers killed. The German account that Beevor quotes exemplifies the pattern because he blames his unit's defeat on the Romanians' retreat, definitely implying German superiority. The Telegraph article is not even worth discussing, it's not an academic reliable source and could potentially be copied from Wikipedia or an unreliable source. Kges1901 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both authors still provide extensive research over the battle, with Beevor still using Soviet sources in his book. Just because their books came out before the 21st century does not discredit their research nor their credit. Your obsession with German bias found in their work is unfounded and without actual proof. Beevor having a German bias, despite being used extensively throughout WW2 pages on Wikipedia, so that claim is just unwarranted and ignored. If German veterans are to be ignored because of a bias, then so will all Russian sources because of probable bias during and after the war. Beevor does not need to directly state something for that to be the case, arguing over semantics is not a proper argument. The Telegraph article is still able to be used as other modern news sources for past events are or have been, not to mention the author of the article's credentials are listed as "Senioe Reporter & History Correspondent". Overy also makes note of human wave tactics as still be used in the Soviet military during the war. All evidence points to human wave attacks as having been used, regardless of what bias is being implied without actual evidence. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Human wave attacks are well known in academia to be a German myth arising from attempts to blame their defeat on Soviet numerical superiority. For example, Kenneth Slepyan describes the human wave attack theory as an "old chestnut." [1] And you have provided no source that specifically relates to the beginning of the Battle of Stalingrad - August 1942, not January 1943. Kges1901 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think there's a common belief that the Soviets used human wave attacks in the battle, prevalent enough that we would be remiss to not address it in the article, one way or another. Why not mention it, referencing the Craig source (possibly noting the criticisms of his work if any reliable sources address them), then cite Slepyan or somebody else dismissing it as a myth? –CWenger (^ • @) 01:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arguing over when the attacks actually happened shows that you have no credible argument because you can't disprove that the attacks were real, so you nitpick the placing of when they occurred, showing the lack of a legitimate argument to the sources and section. If that was to be true of a "German myth" it would be far more mainstream, yet Overy while disputing the layman's idea of the Soviet army, still acknowledges the use of human wave elements in the Soviet military, a source in which you provided. If the dispute cannot be resolved, then a third party will have to be involved. Also, ironically, in Kenneth Slepyan's review, he does not say whether or not the human wave attacks are true, he merely calls it "old chesnut", saying that the authors describe how the Soviets eventually changed their tactics "particularly in the second half of the war". Reaper1945 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Human wave attack are known to be a Russian tactic from WW1 to WW2 to the Russian army’s inept performance in Ukraine. There is no credible evidence against it. Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Telegraph is an excellent source and extremely credible. What you mean is : you dont agree with it
Editors should gain consensus before (re)introducing contented content, and definitely stop edit warring. Talk *to* each other, not *about* each other. (Hohum@) 01:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article could definitely use a historiography section that discusses the impact of German mythmaking on English-language accounts of the battle, but Craig's description of human wave attacks is just one sentence: On that day, Zhukov launched "human wave" assaults, which crashed into the left flank of the German corridor from the Don to the Volga and immediately foundered. I have tried to find more detailed coverage of these claims in histories of the Eastern Front but most historians don't address such claims. Given consensus at RSN I have removed the relevant statements as either supported by unreliable sources or giving WP:UNDUE weight to a one sentence mention in Craig that uses quotation marks, especially after having checked the most recent scholarship on Stalingrad, including Michael Jones' Stalingrad: How the Red Army Triumphed, David Glantz' Stalingrad Trilogy, Geoffrey Roberts' Victory at Stalingrad, and Jochen Hellbeck's Stalingrad. None of these sources describe Soviet tactics as human wave attacks. The Telegraph news article by a journalist with no academic credentials is inherently unreliable to support such a controversial statement, and Beevor's account, again, does repeat the German soldier's claims in authorial voice. To repeat German soldier claims in wikivoice is misuse of WP:PRIMARY. While this situation illustrates that there is a persistent popular myth of Soviet human wave attacks in general during World War II, I believe that it's undue to mention here without academic sources specifically discussing these myths in relation to the battle itself. Kges1901 (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Am I missing something? This is a discussion about something that didn't happen and about which there are no RSs saying it happened? Can we file it under "forget" and move on? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The opening parentheses for the date of the battle, on the very first line of the article is missing. 87.64.75.150 (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“ Today, the Battle of Stalingrad is universally regarded as the turning point in the European theatre of war”
Suggested changes. Either remove the word “universally”, which is significantly incorrect because it is defined as “all”. That is just factually incorrect. Or change to “possible turning point”. Or add “Alongside the Battle of Britain, it is regarded as one of the turning points.
Von Runstedt regarded the Battle of Britain as the significant turning point. Even so, there is no military reason to regard Stalingrad as anything other as a bloody defeat for the Nazis. Kentish 86.3.134.204 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the article cites that temperatures dropped to -40 Celsius however, according to Wiki Weatger and other sources, the average nighttime winter temperatures are above -10 Celsius 2A00:23C4:3522:6B01:713:C0B9:3A0E:E284 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 11:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)