This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofGermany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Russia, aWikiProject dedicated to coverage ofRussia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofUkraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of thehistory of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates tothe Balkans or Eastern Europe, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page.
Were there really only nine victims below the age of 15, from a total of 26 million?
"Mass shootings and gassing operations, carried out by German paramilitary death squads and collaborators,[h] murdered over 26 million Soviets, of whom around 14 to 20 million of the murdered victims were Soviet civilians, and around nine of the murdered civilians were children under the age of 15."
The most recent additions turn a neutral summary into a coatrack for a sweeping geopolitical narrative built on primary quotes, fringe voices, and rhetorical flourishes—while even linking to an unacceptable site. My inclination is that we immediately strip it back to the prior concise, secondary-sourced consensus GA narrative prior to these changes. Policy anchors: UNDUE, SYNTH, PSTS/PRIMARY, FRINGE, RECENTISM, MOS:QUOTE, MOS:LINKING, ELNEVER/COPYLINK. Hopefully, an admin sees this and does so right away.
In any case, the changes fall short of the present Wikipedia quality standards. We don't have to wait for an administrator but perhaps user Alexander Makarov 1 would like to offer some suggestions how to insert the acceptable and useful parts of his essay into the original text. Without quotes of course :o).--MWAK (talk)21:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree with your judgement. Constructing new passages in a neoeurasianist viewpoint in complete silence, on what is one of the most trafficked pages on this site, is generally anodd decision. While I don't find the writing to be of poor quality, I would second that this not concise, not in compliance with the MOS, and seems a lot more like the conclusion of an essay than a passage in an encyclopedia. I would also keep an eye on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact's page, which was also the subject of mass editing by this same user in the last two weeks. If questionable extrapolations of Russian conservative neoeurasianist third way strangeness recently became the accepted theory and praxis for the world's population to unpack the consequences of Barbarossa, in the significance section of a Wikipedia article no less, I'm turning in my library card and buying a one-way ticket to the moon.Xenomorph 001 (talk)10:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Xenomorph 001 Your commentary actually made me laugh aloud. We'll see how an admin handles this; when and if one ever shows up.
Well, the fact that the contentious topic procedure is applicable means that any editor has a mandate for firm protective measures. But we can change the article ourselves after reaching consensus.--MWAK (talk)07:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original status restored. Period. Too many of us worked for way too long to get this to GA status with the best scholarship to allow the page to be ruined by an unregistered user's fringe soapbox. --Obenritter (talk)19:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user is registered.
* Most arguments are mainstream, sourced and by mainstream authors (George Kennan, Liddell Hart, Ian Kershaw...).
* Barbarossa decisively altered the geopolitical balance in the war - mainstream.
* The US shifted from defensive to offensive policy following Barbarossa - mainstream.
Being registered is a good thing but an anonymous user's contributions have to meet the same criteria. All the points you make are correct but seemed to be combined by you to justify an exaggerated expose of Eurasianism, violatingWP:Undue Weight. Your writing style is pleasing but fits an essay better than an encyclopedia. All those quotes were utterly redundant.--MWAK (talk)12:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undue weight is not zero weight. Fringe views are mentioned at the end of articles in proportion to their weight.Xenomorph unreasonably sent himself one way to the Moon. Please, return. (Second lough aloud?). In this case, I wrote 3 sentences on the Eurasianist view at the end. The Eurasianist school is notable with notable representatives, for example, Putin. He works closer with Dugin than Hitler worked with Haushofer. Hence the due weight is above zero = deserves mention.
Essay involves personal arguments. Give me one such argument I published.
Link to an unacceptable site - no such link exists.
I said that I was a registered user all the way but you keep insisting that I am not.
Your reason for reversion is content rather than any of the above pretexts you use. You suppress all sources, including most reliable Western sources, implying that the Democracies would not win the War without Barbarossa, that the United States was focused on the hemispheric defense before Barbarossa, that the victory of the Democracies was the product of German decision contradicting Geopolitik and involving epic miscalculation. You suppress these sources in order to maintain the image of invincibility and you prefer a stub chapter on historical significance as long as it saves this image. Not encyclopedic.
I certainly agree that unpacking how Putin and Dugin explain Operation Barbarossa's significance is a valuable endeavor. It is something I am not immediately familiar with, but the processes by which people reach different conclusions with the same sources is a valuable portion of historical production. I applaud efforts to analyze and extrapolate these viewpoints. I would highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the manual of style, packing your sources and analysis into a more concise piece, and introducing it to Wikipedia's Eurasianism page, or if you find the rules here stifling publishing an article elsewhere. I do not find most of your sources disagreeable in their content, but the deployment of them bereft of their conclusions isquestionable. To pretend that B.H. Liddell Hart, a man who made a career of whitewashing German generals, is on board for a reinterpretation of the Second World War as a skirmish in the 21st century memory politics of Russian Nationalism is really funny to me, I enjoyed that in particular. Time heals all wounds?
On the topic of personal arguments, closely read your own posts on this talk page.
I don't particularly believe that anyone attempting to keep the Operation Barbarossa Wikipedia page coherent in their free time is trying to tell you "that the Democracies would win without Barbarossa." I would firmly state that we are interested in the reality of the Soviet Union's vital contribution to the defeat of Fascism, as part of a global coalition of Great Powers, rather than your assumption that we seek to remove the Soviet Union's role. This is not a Call of Duty World War 2 criticism forum post, this is an article describing Operation Barbarossa as one of the most important military events in human history.
In terms of hemispheric defense I would suggest acquainting yourself with the intricacies of the United States' role as a global power in the interwar period, the Pacific War's escalation, and the Battle of the Atlantic. Unless, of course, Eurasianism has decided that oceans are irrelevant, in which case, I do not seek to dissuade you. I found it valuable to write out my thoughts in the same way you wrote out yours, and I welcome the exchange, but I would not post them in this article without some discussion, it comes across as quite strange. To be clear; I do not wish to infringe on your capacity for independent thought on this matter, I am not interested in this debate, and most importantly, both of our postions are immaterial to an article about Operation Barbarossa.
For Geopolitik; great, I would recommend reading the article "Operation Barbarossa" on Wikipedia that prescribes to your viewpoint that Nazi Germany made a serious mistake in invading the Soviet Union. If this article is too poisoned for you to read, then taking a good look at percievable reality will do as an acceptable alternative.
My personal recommendation is to post your thoughts unedited on Conservapedia's page for Operation Barbarossa, I suspect you will find the reactions you are seeking there. If you do so, please report back on this endeavour, it will be comedic gold. Other than that, I consider this topic closed.
Shall we remove the AI-tag? I feel pretty sure that user Obenritter did not use it. Apparently well-written, intelligent and well-sourced text is so rare that people can't imagine it having been written down by a human being :o). No precise proof was provided. "Negative parallelisms" are typical for LLMs but also for Wikipedia as they are an easy way to express a NPOV.--MWAK (talk)11:00, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an AI was used to detect alleged AI things and it failed miserably? I found that tagging strange but had no time to look into it. --Denniss (talk)12:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't think the cited May edits wre AI generated. Usually an AI can't manage to add functioning citations to an article, especially not on the first try. Not sure why the flag would be for Obenritter's work either. That said, I read through the offending edit, and I would definitely support making it more concise, or putting the more specific aspects in a note. Which is great, because since this edit wasseven months ago, the community has already done just that. No phantom sources either, all the cited sources do exist (it's just great that I need to write that).
If you want my guess, I bet tagging the edit as "academically supported addition" to a previously weak addition tripped a bunch of warnings in the reporter's mind, that is very typical of folks using AI. Conducting a bibliographical Turing test was not on my list of Christmas activities, but here we are. Welcome to the future!Xenomorph 001 (talk)13:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to incorporate Askey's correction of Glantz's count of Soviet frontline strength on 22 June 1941? He writes about it here starting from page eight:
I understand that an essay, even if it was written by a reputable historian who is already cited in the info box, is not the kind of work admissible for citations but someone else on here might be better acquainted with his works and would be able to use a citation from one of his books where he wrote about the same topic?~2026-95916-9 (talk)20:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedGA-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
The redirectGermna invasion of Russia has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 1 § Germna invasion of Russia until a consensus is reached.DrKay (talk)10:14, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
