Talk:Soviet Army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Poor sourcing on the current articles, a lot of pre-2000 and indeed pre-1990 material being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.149.103 (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 | On 22 April 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Soviet Ground Forces. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WWII aftermath/Cold War
This article has a section called 'After World War II', followed by one called 'Cold War'. I propose to remove Cold War material from the section that precedes the 'Cold War' section. If anyone wants to put it in the 'Cold War' section, they're free to do so. It would certainly be a more logical home for it. Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. This was already discussed on your talk page. Not only are you removing relevant, sourced content, but you are damaging the layout and templates of the article per this edit. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not discussed enough to my satisfaction. I don't understand why you want to have material related to late in the Cold War in a section to do with the immediate aftermath of World War II, especially when the latter is followed by a section named 'Cold War'. Your other changes are fine, I've no problem with those being put back in. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Slightly misleading
The article states the Soviet Army as being only the ground forces part of the Soviet Armed Forces (as e. g. the United States Army is in case of USA). One should notice that also Strategic Rocket Forces, Air Forces and Air Defense Forces formed parts of the Soviet Army, so that the term Soviet Army embraces a brider specter than only Ground forces. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Wrong link for a CINC of the Soviet Ground Forces
The Ivan Pavlovsky link leads to the Wikipedia page of a Belorussian gymnast instead of an article about the CINC of that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.119.112.3 (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Fixed Thank you for pointing that out. I've de-linked Pavlovsky. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Equipment numbers c1990
Dear Kges1901 currently we have an unreliable source (Globalsecurity.org) and an unsourced list of equipment c1990. Have you seen from the later Soviet/Russian sources after 1990 any more reliable listings of total numbers of equipment anywhere? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Parts of the globalsecurity list are drawn from the 1990 CFE data. I have not found more reliable data but total equipment numbers are not really my area of focus. The 1990 CFE data seems adequate for total numbers, however, and numbers that are not based on estimates might not be public. Kges1901 (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- An authoritative official source for the detailed 1990 CFE declaration lists, not hosted on Globalsecurity, would be just fine. If you know / can point to one, I will replace all the GS references. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: HIS 347
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 27 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Optfrost (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Alipetrone, Wvc9.
— Assignment last updated by Soviethistorian (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Banner
Requested move 22 April 2025
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Not enough support for a move, not enough recent !votes to keep this discussion open. (non-admin closure) CNC (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Soviet Army → Soviet Ground Forces – As has been mentioned in an earlier talk page section, the name for this article is slightly misleading, as "Soviet Army" in Russian/Soviet military parlance refers to all the land and air services of the Soviet Armed Forces (as is made clear on Russian Wikipedia, where ru:Советская армия and ru:Сухопутные войска СССР refer to two different things). The Soviet Ground Forces was the official name for this force and is more accurate, since the article only refers to the land warfare service. Additionally it will be in keeping with the article for the Russian Ground Forces. Pave Paws (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. cyberdog958Talk 06:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Soviet Union and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. cyberdog958Talk 06:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - per above Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - per above. Long overdue. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. No case has been made in terms of Wikipedia:article name policy. In particular, what this force is called in Russian sources has no relevance unless no English sources exist, which seems highly unlikely. Andrewa (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- The argument is explicitly about WP:CRITERIA - Precision, to avoid misunderstandings. It accords with Concision, and Recognizability, in addition. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- So you you are saying that Soviet Ground Forces is more precise, and more concise, and more recognisable, than the current name? Evidence? The nomination makes none of these claims, instead appealing to Russian Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- On preciseness "Soviet army" is pretty vague and soviet ground forces is much more precise; It's also a much more used term Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- Again I say, evidence? Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- Central Intelligence Agency (November 1982). "The Readiness of Soviet Ground Forces, Interagency Intelligence Memorandum 82-10012" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 January 2015. Retrieved 27 September 2022.
- Scott and Scott, "Armed Forces of the USSR," for example the 1984 edition, referring to the Ground Forces.
- Again I say, evidence? Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
- On preciseness "Soviet army" is pretty vague and soviet ground forces is much more precise; It's also a much more used term Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- So you you are saying that Soviet Ground Forces is more precise, and more concise, and more recognisable, than the current name? Evidence? The nomination makes none of these claims, instead appealing to Russian Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
- The argument is explicitly about WP:CRITERIA - Precision, to avoid misunderstandings. It accords with Concision, and Recognizability, in addition. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Western sources that mentioned "Soviet Army". Absolutiva (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)