Talk:Operation Manchurian Freedom (1983: Doomsday)

Some little things to keep in mind: Doomsday is usually spelled with a capital d; in the combatants section, it might be best to put something else other than the military regions, sounds a bit weird (they are from their, but aren't really affiliated with the region anymore); "Soviets" is not used for this USSR- use either USSR, Socialist Union or simply Siberia.

A larger concern is the Primorskaya Territory- It wasn't a part of the USSR again until 2010, no troops are coming from there.

The Chinese left flank retaliated, entering the city along route 301, and engaging the Soviets about thirty feet down the road.- thirty feet seems awfully specific.

Changchun is already to far south for any military action on the part of Siberia. In general, think on a smaller scale, the entire part about securing south Manchuria will have to go. Imperial China needs room to breath after all. :) Vladivostok (talk) 19:56, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of changing some of the offending content. Harbin was nuked for example, look up the cities that were targeted on the Doomsday page. In general, assume that a city was nuked if it is a larger city, or if it was an important military or industrial hub.

What I didn't change, but should be, are the dates. The war simply did not last five years, especially not from any outside sources. It could have lasted, maybe, until 1991.

Also, Imperial China didn't engage the Siberians in so direct a manner. There was no warfare, official or otherwise, between them until 2012. Vladivostok (talk) 07:02, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

If it's alright with you, I think it might be easier to say the war ended in 1991, however Chinese rebels would continue to harass the area until 1995. Mscoree (talk) 12:35, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, but keep in mind that you'll have to change the end date to somewhere in 1991 and do a bit of an overhaul in the last third of your article to accommodate for the change. Vladivostok (talk) 13:11, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

As I have noted elsewhere - the "First" Manchurian War was from 1904-1905. The name needs to change. Lordganon (talk) 09:26, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Also, paragraphs. Definitely more paragraphs. Lordganon (talk) 09:35, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Umm, but do they call it that? I mean, where is the term prevalent? The war you're referring to is the Russo-Japanese War, and that's its official name. Why couldn't this be called the First Manchurian War then? Vladivostok (talk) 15:18, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

It is a fairly common name for that war, especially in Russia. Think of it as being like how WWI is also called the "Great War."

There is no such thing as an "official" name for a war - there are merely names in common usage. In most of the world, "Russo-Japanese War" is one of these - but it's not so much the case in Russia.

This cannot be called the "First Manchurian War."

Lordganon (talk) 09:14, April 19, 2013 (UTC) Oh, I know those Russians have wacky, different names for wars, like how WW 2 is the Great Patriotic War.

I don't have a problem with the name changing, it's just that I can't find any mention of the term, at least not with a quick Google, yandex and Wikipedia search in Russian, that's why I'm a bit confused, the prevalence of the term doesn't seem to be that great on the Internet at least.

Vladivostok (talk) 10:13, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

"Manchurian War" will get you some if you google it. The journal of the Russo-Japanese War Research Society is even called that.

And, alternatively, various fighting in the 1930s, be it the Japan and USSR border disputes or the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, have also been referred to as the "Manchurian War."

Depends on what source, really. Slightly older ones lean towards 1904-05 being the Manchurian War, and slightly younger ones the latter period.

Either way, this is definitely not the first war. Really, calling this a war may be a bit of a stretch anyway.

Lordganon (talk) 14:21, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

The name change would mean that the current war (2012 conflict) would also have to be changed. It might be easier to refer to this series of conflicts as the first and second Manchurian wars, not related in any way to the pre-doomsday First Manchurian War. Mscoree (talk) 14:25, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

I've also added more paragraphs. Mscoree (talk) 14:28, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

...

Part of what I'm saying is that this is not really a "war."

The "Second Manchurian War" article has a good name - as I noted on it's talk page when it was first started.

It's this article that needs renaming. Be it to "Operation (Something)" or "(Something) Incident," or something else, it's just this one.

Lordganon (talk) 14:33, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Hm, never really thought of it as not being a war, I suppose it could be named accordingly (Operation or Incident). Like "Operation Manchurian Freedom" or something like that.

And Mscoree, please, change the naming of the USSR from Soviet to Siberian, Socialist Union or just use USSR. They aren't called that anymore. Vladivostok (talk) 16:47, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way - there's no real opponent. Yes, there is enemies, and fighting, but there's no real opponent. It's just a bunch of warlords claiming to have some sort of control, but having none. So not really a war.

"Operation Manchurian Freedom" sounds exactly like something they would name the military operation, lol.

Have to say, this thing vastly inflates the Chinese resistance - it's been noted elsewhere that there was no real authority in the area, yet, to read this, there was. That needs adjusting.

Lordganon (talk) 08:26, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the enemy should be toned down a bit, I don't have any more larger complaints. And I actually have taken a liking to the name OMF. Because, after all, the USSR doesn't invade, it liberates. Vladivostok (talk) 13:15, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Very, very, true.

...The references to organized resistance, as well as the reference to Imperial China Vlad noted before, are both still there. There's also several spots that are, at best, clunky, that still remain.

Lordganon (talk) 07:52, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

Finished
I think this article is finished. It seems to be a logical article on the Siberian "liberation" and the wiping out of the rebels in a month would be pretty good, considering the Siberials will be hampered by equipment and stuff. Graduate? Imp (Say Hi?!) 21:05, September 26, 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Myself and Vlad, the author/caretaker of Siberia, both have serious reservations with the whole set of Manchuria articles. Ms has failed to do anything about them. Lordganon (talk) 10:53, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

I wish someone would tell me them. FML Mscoree (talk) 14:10, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Ok LG. Well, considering how this is a different article to the other one, what problems do you think there are? You said some bits were clunky at best, what does this refer to exactly? I saw some aspects about Imperial China and told Ms that the article would be better without them, and he edited the page accordingly. To me, everthing looks fine. The other article is a different issue and I think it should be regarded as that - so comments about it should be put on its talkpage, lol. :P  Imp (Say Hi?!) 14:53, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Bull, Ms. You have been told what the problem is countless times. Heck, it's even on this talk page. Quit lying to us.

Imp, this article is the one that the problem is largely with. While he did remove the Imperial China reference, he hasn't done a single thing to remove the problems with regards to what was in the area prior to this move, and what this move fought. There was nothing there like Ms has written, and both myself and Vlad have told him this several times. Nor, for that matter, has he even tried to fix this.

The "clunky" aspects remain as well, for that matter.

"Everything" is most decidedly not fine.

As for the "other article" in question, that's the article that results, in theory, from this one. And not only does it have references to this one that need fixing, but the article itself can't exist until this one does. Told Ms that before, too.

Lordganon (talk) 17:43, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

So what exactly is wrong in regards to what was there before the operation? Mscoree (talk) 19:13, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

...

The exact same thing as noted in the section above this. You have organized resistance. Yet, there was nothing like that.

Lordganon (talk) 11:10, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

What organized resistance? Before the operation I note, "The local government was shattered immensely, leading to an increase in looting and other crimes. Several local military leaders would assume control of the area, fighting for dominance in the chaos." During the actual operation I mention a few minor gang leaders and officers who led small raiding parties, but they were completely unaffiliated and unorganized, so I don't know what you're talking about. Mscoree (talk) 21:54, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

I added a paragraph emphasizing the fact that there was no organized resistance, if that helps. Mscoree (talk) 22:02, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

You claim that, but that is without question not what the article actually says. Again, both myself and Vlad noted this, but you have done nothing about it.

That addition makes the problem worse.

Lordganon (talk) 08:34, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

I'll try fixing it myself then... Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:39, October 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Please tell me its done. If not, then close to being completed! [[Image:1.png|23px]] Imp (Say Hi?!) 18:46, October 3, 2013 (UTC)