Talk:Russian military deception/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citation problem

I also have a problem with one of the citations, which uses author "authority control," I don't really know what that is. I would change the citation to a template, but don't want to screw something up. I would also like to add this author link: Samuel B. Griffith if it is the right one. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Title

There is a strong and shared opinion that "Maskirovka" is an unsatisfactory title, as expressed at length in the GA review (above). The title forced the article into lengthy analyses of the term's meaning and usage (i.e. talking about the word itself, rather than the military doctrine). It has proven to be an awkward name for an article and in the wider world, because it has had various meanings over the years; it has also now started to be used popularly in the West, for example by the press, with a meaning that is close to pejorative - nasty sneaky Russian trickiness, roughly. The article's topic, when it has not involved wrangling about the word, has always been military deception in Russia (including when Russia was part of the Soviet Union, but not limited to that). Several editors have stated (very firmly indeed) that Maskirovka was not a satisfactory name, nor did it give the article focus; two recommended a change of title; and after months-long reflection, I have to agree with them that a plain descriptive title is better. I have in the last few weeks recast the article to focus simply on the topic of "Russian military deception", mentioning the word Maskirovka simply as a synonym; the result is that the complexity has melted away, a huge advantage; and the structure of the article emerges without much effort as a straightforward history from pre-Soviet times to the present. I have (of course) made quite heavy use of Glantz's Soviet Military Deception in the Second World War - during that war, deception unsurprisingly became critically important. But the article provides history and examples of Russian military deception before and after that war, showing that there is an essential continuity of Russian doctrine on military deception throughout the twentieth century. For all these reasons, I feel confident that there is both broad consensus and very good reason to give the article the plain descriptive title "Russian military deception". "Maskirovka" remains as a redirect, and it is named as a synonym in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

From what I got from the discussion, the GA reviewer didn't like the title so you're now inclined to changed it. I don't think that's correct, but If you and User:7&6=thirteen wish to move it OK then. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; but as I said above, the article works much better now that it has been recast to describe RMD rather than worrying about what a shifting term might mean: it was always dangerously close to a dictionary definition, whereas now it's a meaty historical topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Maskirovka is much bigger, wider and deeper than Military deception and has its own unique history. I don't think that mergeer or name change ids in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've assembled a whole article's worth of sources, facts and quotations in the article on Russian military deception, which appears from the sources to encompass "Maskirovka". If you believe the topics can be distinguished in an encyclopedic way (I don't) then feel free to describe how the M article would differ from the present one, recalling that Wikipedia is "NOT a DICTIONARY", so we can't focus an article on a term, English or foreign. Personally I believe that RMD encompasses M, leaving nothing but the possibly-mistaken Western usage of the term, and hence nothing very deep or suitable for an article there, but I'm happy to be convinced if you know of evidence to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is definitely better then a lot of GAs around here, I think you guys should try again, independent of the article's name. SuffrenXXI (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Since no arguments have been advanced to the contrary, and in fact quite strongly held opinions in favour, I'm undoing the move. User:Altenmann explicitly proposed renaming the article, suggesting Deception in Russian military doctrine or D&D in Russian military doctrine, arguing that "IMO borrowing a Russian term is unwarranted" and giving as an reason Charles Smith's cited definition of the "set of processes designed to mislead, confuse, and interfere...." and concluding "I have no idea why Smith used the Russian word, but he clearly speaks of military deception." User:Altenmann further argues that the use of the Russian word [is chosen] "to create an illusion it is something very special [like ] Russian "samovar" for which English does not even have a special word." He further observes that some sources such as Hansen cited in the article use phrases such as "Soviet deception in the Cuban Missile Crisis", arguing that this is "a correct English word" for the topic of the article. User:Andrew Davidson follows up on the idea that the use of the Russian term implies especial sneakiness, writing "Perhaps this concept of the Russians being especially sneaky is just propaganda, contrary to WP:NPOV?" User:Wugapodes remarked that the title "maskirovka" seemed to be a poor choice as it did not match the content of the article (where, he correctly observed at that time, "the text reads more like the history of deception in Russian Military than of the term". He suggested "possibly think about a title change" and observed that the term "maskirovka" had "a dozen different definitions". While this is not a vote, at least four users (including myself) have thus separately advanced opinions against the Russian title and in favour of a descriptive English title.

This is without prejudice to creating a separate article on the concept of maskirovka as seen in the west, which certainly isn't identical to the Russian military deception doctrine which is the subject of this article, and may not have much in common with it at all. I'd be happy to be persuaded there was a case for such an article, though I'd be a bit concerned it was mainly a matter of dictionary definition, which was definitely an issue with the article as it once was. Now that it is clearly focused on (the history of) Russian military deception, it is remarkable how many of the problems have simply melted away. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Distinctive Russian-ness

What the article fails to do is demonstrate any difference of Russian military deception from military deception employed by any other nation. Okay, the Soviets tried to conceal their troop movements, hide their reserves, feed the enemy false information, and mask their positions - is that not what the Germans did as a part of blitzkrieg, or what the Allies did before the Normandy landing (see Operation Fortitude)? Okay, Russian economy can be mobilized, with tanks produced at an automobile (more likely a tractor or a railway car) factory. How is that different from economic mobilization in other nations? Russian politics lie about their goals, intentions, and troop deployments - what's the difference between what they are doing and, say, the preparations for the Iraq war, or any of the alphabet agencies' black ops? Danvolodar (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks. Let's assume for a moment that you may be right. But consider: an article on the history of Russian wheat production (say), is not obliged to say what is incredibly rare and special about how that worthwhile grain is grown in that country; its task is simply to describe what the situation is and has been, with reliable sources. Sometimes the country's production techniques will resemble those of other countries; sometimes, perhaps, these will lag behind; in some areas, maybe, they will be unusual, advanced, or specially ingenious. Most likely there will be some combination of all of these. So it is, I think, with the way Russia has undertaken military deception in the past century. It is for other articles to talk about Fortitude; and it is not for Wikipedia editors to venture their own opinions. Where people have stated opinions in books and the press, these have been quoted and cited; indeed, we have the word of a German general that the Russians did the job well, in one case. But that there is a history to tell, as briefly summarized in the article, with the sources given, there is no doubt whatsoever. On comparisons with other nations, that would properly be the role of an (international) overview article such as Military deception, not the article on any one nation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As you rightly point out, if a specialized article is to be branched out from a more general one, it has to demonstrate the peculiarity of its subject (take Federalism in Germany as an example) and/or focus on its history (see Elections in the United States for instance). Meanwhile, the notable examples of Russian military deception are already covered in the general article on Military deception, and nothing of substance that'd demonstrate the qualitative difference between the Russian approach and that of any other great military power has been provided.

Thank you, but the article does exactly that. It demonstrates its unique history, which is distinct from that of any other nation, and which the general article only (rightly) touches on briefly, mentioning a couple of points, so your "nothing of substance" is factually incorrect. One might also note what cited Western sources identify as the exceptional willingness to extend deception into peacetime: whether they are right or wrong about this, it is the documented perception, and unique to this article's subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

So what is in the article that is not in the general one? Claims by the Western media that the Crimean operation was "maskirovka", because... really, it just was? Truly a claim deserving an article of its own. Why not coin an article for every claim the North Korean press makes, I mean, WP:NEWSORG doesn't exist. Danvolodar (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Besides, an article on grain production will not introduce a local term for grain harvesting (say, "Getreideernte") and present it as something uniquely local, as did this article in its very title. Danvolodar (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't now, so it's not an issue. The term in question is however not only a local term, but has for better or worse been picked up by Western journalists and military specialists and used as an English word, sometimes indeed with meanings that might not be recognised as correct in Russia, demonstrating that the concept has been assimilated into the English language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:WINAD. Danvolodar (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed not. That's why this article is a detailed history of a complex topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Undue treatment of Ukraine?

Both IP and named editors have suddenly started adding quantities of material about Ukraine. This is unbalancing the treatment of this historical topic, introducing elements of WP:Recentism and possibly WP:POV editing. We need to be very clear about the need for reliable, independent, non-partisan sources on such topics, and to keep the coverage of recent events within tight bounds. If there is ample material on Russian deception in Ukraine (etc) then I'd suggest making separate articles on those topics, leaving a concise (say, one paragraph) summary here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The content about Ukraine seems to be more about the political deception rather than Maskirovka as a military concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Syria

Any thoughts on expanding the article by adding a section on Russian deception tactics in Syria. Koonter (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Syria is a possible topic, if it can be shown that Russian military deception is involved from reliable sources. A caution: this is an article on a topic with 100 years of history, and it should not become recentist. It may be difficult to get a good perspective on recent events for some years yet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The article seems to be more about Putin's political moves, rather than the military deception. It appears that the word "deception" is used in the article literally: "Putin seems to have turned a reasonable military move to cut forward air force deployment in response to a cessation of hostilities into a major strategic deception ploy by making the global community believe he is actually withdrawing from Syria." K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The article as a whole certainly isn't about recent politics, and the mention of Putin in the article is in fact inside an attributed quotation - it is not any editor's opinion. I have cut down the Ukraine section, and it is probably about the right length now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)