Talk:Battle of Stalingrad

Former good article nomineeBattle 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.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 24, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 19, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 2, 2005, February 2, 2006, February 2, 2007, February 2, 2008, February 2, 2009, February 2, 2010, and February 2, 2015.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Edit request

the article cites Sokolov data about 2 million KIA and MIA casualties which seems absolutely unrealistic. Soviet forces in Battle of Stalingrad were ~1,1 million soldiers (every soldier died twice?) and Soviet army in total were ~5,5 million people

i suggest to remove this casualties data 95.220.21.185 (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that both German and soviet losses are not just Stalingrad, they are for all fighting on the Southern Front from July, which is way more than “Stalingrad”. 47.220.25.18 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Casualty data is never perfect. It's always an estimation, and as stated above, it's not just Stalingrad. NotJamestack (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The soviet forces 1,1 mils also are not for the city itself, it is for Southern Front. Total Soviet forces were 5,5 mils for all fronts. Loosing 2 mils KIA would mean 4-8 mils wounded resulting in destruction of the whole Soviet army which is absurd

At least read Sokolov page in Russian wiki with translator: he is a freak of Russian history science community, his "researches" are not based on any facts. It is ridiculous that they are used as a serious data here

nothing of the sort. Russians have terrible medicine with incompetent doctors. For every one killed, 1, maximum 2 wounded among Russians. Most of the Soviet wounded died.--Vaclaw1990 (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit semi-protected, "Kessel" terminology

Kessel -> Pocket (military)#Kessel. Necessary context for a term-of-art that's not glossed in the article itself. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Helpful link, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kessel -> [[Pocket (military)#Kessel|Kessel]]. Necessary context for a term-of-art that's not glossed in the article itself. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done See above DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry, bodged duplicate from server errors and sleep-confused editor.. And thank you! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B. V. Sokolov

@Remove The Namuwiki, you were already asked once (per WP:ONUS) to discuss the sourcing questions on this talk page before continuing to contest the live article. Please do that now, seeing that I've even started the thread here for you. Remsense 🌈 论 16:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, I ask that you kindly refrain from further personal attacks and aspersions against other editors as you do so. Your username and userpage are already explicitly belligerent, but you don't have justification to accuse other editors of malfeasance editing when they raise specific issues with your edits like @Anonimu has. Starting your editing career convinced you're on a battleground is exactly the wrong way to make progress improving the encyclopedia.) Remsense 🌈 论 16:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a word was forgotten?

The 4th Panzer Army, ordered south on 13 July to block the Soviet retreat "weakened by the 17th Army and the 1st Panzer Army", had turned northwards to help take the city from the south.

Where it says 'weakened by the 17th Army and the 1st Panzer Army," is that meant to be 'weakened by the transfer/loss' of those units? As written, it sounds like the German formations fought a battle with themselves. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think its trying to say that the soviet retreat had been weakened. 167.224.142.189 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's strangely worded.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war on casuallties

there is a long revert war about numbers for casualties, with no attempt to discuss them here, it talk page. So I initiated tihe sectiopn, with no opinion. --Altenmann >talk 23:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue with the Pereslegin source. The Suvorov source is up for debate. The 1,500,000 total casualties for the Axis is up in the air as well, with the source by Krinko and Medvedev as inflated, with total casualties of the Axis reaching no more than 880,000.Reaper1945 (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Forgetting 1.5M, the numbers still dont match. I summed to get upper limit 873K while the infobox says total dead 500K + total captured 235K, which would be 735K. Krinko&Medvedev say "over 880K" --Altenmann >talk 04:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1.5, I would suggest to put it into a footnote. Georgy Jukes clearly cited nice and round Soviet number. Geoffrey Roberts gives the same number. Some other sources also cite this number without giving soource of their wisdom in this respect. --Altenmann >talk 05:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This results due to multiple sources being used which may have different casualties and the sort, especially the 500,000 dead. The 1.5 million I know is doubted by Krinko & Medvedev, and Axis casualties certainly didn't exceed the total of the Soviet Union. Capping it at 880,000 is recommended by Krinko & Medvedev. Also the issues is to how the scope of the battle is defined, as it goes from the city itself to the larger campaign around the general region. Reaper1945 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
dewiki de:Schlacht von Stalingrad say ">1,000,000 soldiers; including: 545,000 allied Romanian and Italian armies" citing Torsten Diedrich: Stalingrad 1942/43. Reclam, Stuttgart 2018, ISBN 978-3-15-011162-8, S. 149.--Altenmann >talk 05:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We could include that citation for the upper bound rather than the 1,500,000 which is cited as inflated by Krinko & Medvedev. Seems to be more reasonable. If someone could just skim the book and confirm it that would be nice as a possible alternative for the upper bound of Axis casualties. Reaper1945 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sic is not Sic (typo in quoted section in Aftermath)

I checked the cited source in the quoted section from Alexander Werth [309] under the Aftermath subheading of the article, to see if it was written as is in the text. The quote in the Wikipedia article is not cited directly from the text, with the second "more" in the quote "Then we came into the yard. Here lay more more horses' skeletons, and to the right, there was an enormous horrible cesspool – fortunately, frozen solid." not present in the original text. A comma is also misplaced.

"Then we came into the yard. Here lay more more horses' skeletons, and to the right, there was an enormous horrible cesspool – fortunately, frozen solid." should be changed to
"Then we came into the yard. Here lay more horses' skeletons and, to the right, there was an enormous horrible cesspool – fortunately, frozen solid." Downpour-Iridescence (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Altenmann >talk 18:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Stalingrad