Talk:Totskoye nuclear exercise

Dubious sources

Even the first two references are extremely dubious: first one is an Ukrainian tabloid site, and second states in it's Russian header that "45000 soviet soldiers killed" as a result of the test, which is just plainly wrong. 94.31.183.22 (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with the IP here. I'm going to tag the page as such. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok... I've added an additional tag... Frankly, if this isn't taken care of in the near future, I'd simply blanket delete everything referenced to that Ukrainian article. NickCT (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've solved this issue and cleaned the page from factually incorrect information taken from dubious websites and added text based on the memoirs of those who actually participated in this exercise. Tabloids and yellow press are obviously not the right kind of sources for an article. 84.51.114.91 (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Corrections (and possibly POV fix)

This article seems to be quite POV, as in "the Totskoye experiment was an inhumane and meaningless bestiality performed by the soviets" - while in fact it was (unfortunately) quite normal in those years. I've rephrased the text in order to make it less biased: i've added some sources, and corrected some errors. For example, the sentence "thousands are believed to have died as a result both from the initial blast and in the years following". Nobody was directly involved in the nuclear explosion: the villages in the range of several kilometers were evacuated before the experiment (and they were actually burned out by the blast). Also the description of the military operations is quite inaccurate, and it doesn't say that the radioactive zone was marked before moving the soldiers (that were going to simulate an hostile territory takeover after a nuclear attack). The experiment was quite similar to the ones performed by USA, UK and other countries in the same years, when radiation effects on human beings were not entirely clear and both soldiers and civil population were used as guinea pigs. Please note that I'm not justifiying it, but at the time the perception on the effects of these tests was different (and incomplete) --156.148.18.50 09:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiation experimentation on still born babies, and the disabled (while still wrong and unfortunate) are NOT similar to basically dropping an atomic bomb a few miles away from your own soldiers and then sending them into the radiation zone. Not to mention bombing your own cities, evacuated or not. And to call them "similar events" is ridiculous. I didn't really see a POV issue with this article until you added that, and made it seem like a normal everyday occurence for nuclear powers during that period of time. Which it certainly was not. I mean, I've seen some bias articles on here before, but this didn't really come across as one.Abalu 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Abalu

c'mon, dear Cold War warrior - go, look at this http://www.geocities.com/emruf6/adam.jpg 70.49.119.49 07:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

lol @ "Cold War Warrior". Wow, you showed me. Sure can't argue with a vague picture of an unknown event from an anonymous user. Nope...can't argue with irrefutable proof like that! Abalu (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Abalu

Article about the event

{{split}}

Or other name.

And add this to Category:Military scandals. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to simply move this article to Totskoye range nuclear tests rather than split and disambig. The entire article is about tests.Biophys (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Similar US tests? Give a proof

I cite:

The experiment was similar to others performed at the time by USA, USSR, UK and other atomic countries,[1] and was designed to test the performance of military hardware and soldiers in the event of a nuclear war.

Please provide a clear proof of US or UK sending its soldiers over the epicenter just after the explosion. The reference does not mention such an expreriment. If for some time there is no answer, I will delete the statement. Best regards, --CopperKettle 16:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is some mention of sending soldiers and officers in contaminated areas, but no similar large scale test just after an explosion, I mean. So the clause could be rephrased so as not to lead the reader into a false conclusion. --CopperKettle 16:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppck-B_R5-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94ZWE8qxiAg

There are other similar videos on Youtube and archive.org, just check them out. 78.15.140.72 (ttal:User talk:78.15.140.72|talk]]) 18:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

An often cited example of problematic US testing is the Marshall Islands tests I think. The British tests in Australia were intended to measure the effect of fallout on existing, real agriculture and cities and the health effects were carefully checked at stations across Australia. The results of these tests however makes me doubt that even the majority of these soldiers died from fallout in this test. cancer rates Obviously rise but by a few percent not enough to outnumber natural causes unless you're talking about direct exposure to heavily radioactive substance like plutonium and usually that kills via radiation sickness a decade before cancer develops.

Something that doesn't make sense:

"The residents of selected villages (Bogdanovka and Fedorovka) that were situated around 6 km (3.7 mi) near the epicenter..."

If the coordinates, 52.642333,52.809167, of the test are correct, then it is impossible that this information is correct as both of these villages are far to the south of the town of Totskoye, and as the page states, the range is to the north of Totskoye. The two villages are about 7 miles apart so if the epicenter were between them, this would be plausible, but it would also leave a very small range for this blast to occur, somewhere near 52.276204,52.77689. It also puts the blast dangerously close to the village of Nevezhkino, unless the Google Maps is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.74.130 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Longer term effects

No long-term effects are noted here, has any work been done about the impact of the radiaion on those within the blast? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

? - Use of Russian Sources Trustworthy

This article possibly breaches neutrality by using only pro-Russian sources. It might be worth checking out Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear groups for more reliable information. 58.6.86.173 (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. Reverted. My very best wishes (talk)

No, you have ignored the reply to that comment and blatantly removed a giant part of the text that was supported by an extremely serious scholarly source, which included memoirs of those who actually participated in the exercise and scientific studies of the 1980s and 1990s, numerous details related to the safety of the military personnel and civilians in the surrounding area, in an attempt to hide every fact that contradicts your own POV. That constitutes as aggressive POV-pushing, if not vandalism, and is completely inappropriate here. While I agree that some unnecessary sentences or parts of sentences can be shortened or removed, as well as that we can add contradicting facts to the article in order to demonstrate different views on the subject, nobody is allowed to remove important and well-sourced facts and memoirs in a manner like that. It won't go unnoticed. I've restored the text. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "pro-Russian sources" here (science, independent investigations and declassified documents are not "pro-Russian", even if you don't like them), and the region has already been investigated by Soviet, post-Soviet and US scientists in the 1990s, as is clearly stated in the article. The main source is a relatively recent scholarly publication that includes precious declassified documents, detailed information on the explosion and radiation levels, memoirs of actual participants, etc. Given that most other sources are clearly less reliable, usually written by those not even remotely familiar with the exercise and often grossly inaccurate to the point of being ridiculous (thanks to yellow journalism and radiophobia, scholars in Russia have had to waste a lot of time dealing with false alarms and publications), it is undoubtedly the best work one could find. 113.179.183.227 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think sources like that one can indeed be used, but they must be used along with other sources on the subject per WP:NPOV, and these other sources (a book by Victor Suvorov, among others) tell a story which is very different from the version you made on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It is unnecessary at best to tell others that declassified data and memoirs of actual participants, i. e. primary sources, "can be used" along with Suvorov, who is far not an expert in the field, and other dubious authors. Other publications can also be included into the article, as long as they are scholarly, based on documentary evidence and scientific measurements, if their conclusions are clearly related to the exercise (e.g., health statistics reports do not necessarily correlate with the explosion that took place in 1954 and can be determined by other factors, such as later industrial and military accidents, ecological issues, etc. Adding them just to demonstrate your POV will consitute as WP:OR, if the connection between them and the subject of the article is not undoubtedly evident). And it goes without saying, that removing and replacing every fact, memoir and research that you personally don't like to see here is clearly forbidden. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

No, what happens here is different. You select a couple of sources you like, use them to re-write the page and exclude all other (majority) views in the process. Now, you tell that your sources are the best. Why? Do we even have pages about their authors? No? We do have a page about Victor Suvorov, and he is a notable author and expert. I would say your sources (such as that one) are actually less reliable because the author has a conflict of interest. This is not a memoir by a participant, but writings by someone who should probably be described as a revisionist historian.My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Now your arguments are absurd to the point of being ridiculous and imply that you haven't even checked the sources you're talking about. We don't need to have articles about every single author, because it is completely unnecessary by WP standards (even revisionist historians and Holocaust deniers have their personal pages in WP, see here), and the main source here is a collective scientific monograph written by Prof. V. A. Logachyov and partly by Lt. Gen. S. A. Zelentsov, himself a veteran of the exercise (you removed the following words: "Sergey Zelentsov (1927—2017), a military officer who was the first to reach the middle of the epicenter, described his experience in the following words..."), edited by Acad. Viktor Mikhaylov and based on tons of declassified data, official reports and military orders from 1954, declassified tapes, civilian and military documents related to the exercise, detailed observations and measurements made in the field in 1954, etc. It includes numerous memoirs of different participants, from senior officers to common soldiers (Lt. Gen. Osin, M.A. Kutsenko, Lt. Gen. S. A. Zelentsov, Col. Prof. M.P. Arkhipov, Col. V.I. Levykin, Lt. Col. N.V. Danilenko, etc.), as well as interviews, opinions of numerous scientists, and so on. That is a primary source on the subject. And there is no way V. Suvorov, who himself is a revisionist writer ("Most scholars, however, including Glantz, Gorodetsky, Ericson, and Uldricks, reject the Suvorov viewpoint" - Prof. Walter G. Moss, A History Of Russia, Volume 2: Since 1855. 2nd ed. 2004. P. 296) and has been a target of considerable criticism for decades, has no access to any documentary evidence whatsoever and no relation to the Totskoye exercise, can be preferred over primary sources. Dubious newspaper publications, rumors and opinions of those who have no connection to the exercise at all are obviously much less reliable than a huge amount of declassified information, actual orders and reports dating back to 1954, opinions of those who actually participated in the exercise and/or studied the impact of the nuclear explosion in the Orenburg oblast. The idea that Suvorov is somehow more reliable than veterans of the exercise, declassified documents and scientific research is dubious to the extreme, laughable and cannot be taken seriously. You have deleted the words of a veteran who reached the epicenter of the blast in 1954, removed numerous facts supported by memoirs and archive documents, veterans and scientists, and cited Suvorov instead. What you're doing and saying here is just beyond common sense and cannot be justified. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If you wish, you can try to add some reliably sourced content, but you should not remove other reliably sourced content, for example, something that was sourced to a NYT article. Also, if you wish to edit controversial subjects, please open named account. My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is Russian language source if you wish. That's a book. It was produced by the Russain Academy of Sciences. English summary tells: "The book coпtaiпs total results of studies of the large author group about loпg-teпn after-effects of the Т otsky пuclear explosioп (TNE) which took place оп September 14, 1954 iп the Oreпburg regioп {Russia). 45 thousaпd persoпs were preseпt оп the Т otsky military raпge {TMR) duriпg military traiпiпgs (ТМТ) at the momeпt of A-explosioп апd the aborigiпes were evacuated iп miпimal exteпt. At preseпt 31.3% of the foпner participaпts of the ТМТ are officially recogпized as the iпvalids. Мапу of them suffer from malignant tumours or Шпesses of Ьlood with early developmeпt of complicated atherosclerosis.. My very best wishes (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, you included texts like that: "The degree of radiation exposure on the armored vehicles, clothes and military personnel was measured immediately after every combat mission. According to the data of remote control and measuring equipment installed at 730 meters from the epicenter, the level of radiation reached 65 R/h two minutes after the blast, dropped to 10 R/h after 10 minutes, 2.4 R/h after 25 minutes, and 1.5 R/h after 47 minutes". . What is that? No one knows what it means. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is actually you who is removing well-sourced and undoubtedly important content and shortening the history of the operation. All scholarly sources, memoirs of those who took part in the exercise, scientific examinations in and around the blast area must be present in the article, especially the essential facts mentioned in the part you have removed. There is virtually no justification for removing it from the text or claiming that primary sources are somehow less credible than secondary ones. If you like, you can provide additional details that may contradict or support the rest of the article, even create a new section, but you cannot get rid of the entire bulk of information provided by scientific research, first-hand evidence, declassified documents, a great number of scientists and veterans of this military operation, etc. That is the basis of our knowledge, the basis of the article, the primary source. If memoirs and declassified documents published in a scholarly work edited and written by numerous scientists and veterans all prove that A did B and got C, then we cannot ignore it, regard it as just an "opinion" and replace it with whatever foreign newspapers or dubious authors have claimed so far. If there is a different scholarly work on this topic and it clearly states that certain environmental issues were caused exactly by the nuclear explosion of 1954 (not by a series of underground nuclear blasts or any other factors), then you're free to add it to the article in order to complete the picture. Just like I and others are free to add what you're trying to remove.

As for the old US newspaper, it is clearly not a scholarly publication and is of dubious reliability and value, since the authors did not do their own research and were not familiar with the subject. It can be added only as an example of how the media depicted the article's topic. "No one knows what it means" - those familiar with radiation do know what, while others can easily search "roentgen per hour" and "radiation exposure" in Google. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I restored a few things from your version. The rest seems to be questionable because it claims essentially that the effects of radiation were "rumors". Not so according to majority of sources, including the book by the Russian Academy of Sciences (link above). "No one knows what it means" - in terms of human health. As written, that incorrectly implies it was safe to live there in a few days. No, it was not [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was bad [2], [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, I've restored some other notable details ("the number of troops crossing the actual site of the explosion", a quotation from Pravda, the evacuation of civilians, non-nuclear explosions) that are extremely important, neutral and shouldn't be removed. The rumors started spreading shortly after the information on the explosion was made public, they served as a reason for carrying out radioecological research in the region, as is supported by the source. As for the health issues, it is a matter of fact that all similar nuclear tests of the 1950s and 1960s were hazardous, causing harm to man and environment alike (Operations Plumbbob, Castle Bravo, Crossroads, as well as the non-nuclear Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense, etc.), and it is apparent that this case wasn't an exception. I've got a number of Russian scientific surveys which confirm that, and I'll probably add them later. However, other studies, such as those mentioned in an earlier version of this article, are also worthy of note and cannot be ignored, even if their conclusions are different. If I have enough time, I'll present all those surveys in order to demonstrate the complexity of the situation, as there is an obvious difference between those reports, surveys and memoirs, different veterans describe their experiences differently, the degree of radiation as measured during the exercise was reported as low, as is confirmed by Zelentsov himself (who was the first to reach the epicenter and measured the radiation exposure received by him there; he died only in 2017, 89 years of age), etc.

The best solution, I believe, would be to combine all those contradicting facts and conclusions in a new section (e.g., "Controversy"); I hope to do that one day, when  I have more time. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 10:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not clear what the source means by telling "the actual site of the explosion". The epicenter? This should be clarified or removed. According to all other sources, all troops took part in the "exercise" at the site of explosion. The laudatory propaganda report in Pravda does not add any specific details. It also should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea about your "sources" and what they are based on (since the archive documents were declassified only recently, most veterans and scholars studying this subject are in Russia, popular "sources" on this subject usually have an extremely shaky base), but the book means the site most devastated by the bomb, including the epicenter. Next, as it was a military exercise (without quotation marks), imitating a large-scale attack with armored vehicles, artillery and airplanes and similar to other exercises of the same kind (see above), the great majority of the troops involved were not supposed to come through the small epicenter and, on the contrary, had orders to avoid the most devastated, polluted, and impassable areas. The book makes it perfectly clear a thousand times, as do the veterans cited in it. Finally, the report in Pravda is both relevant and significant, as it was the only official report on the exercise, regardless of whether you consider it "propaganda" or not (frankly speaking, it is remarkably laconic and accurate). This quotation is necessary to demonstrate what the Soviet government reported about the test. Even the Great Russian Encyclopedia cites it in a similar article (it also recommends the same book, given the lack of other credible sources on this topic). Your attack against that quote is ungrounded and out of place. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if there is any sourced information, even maps, about the troops - how they moved and where, what they did, etc. - all of that can be included. I am only saying that "the actual site of the explosion" is undefined. Something like "within 500 meters from the epicenter" would be just fine. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Either you stop your disruptive editing or I will have to bring it to the ANB. The quotation is relevant, it is the only official report about the operation and as such is present in different sources on the Totskoye exercise, including the much-cited scholarly work and the Great Russian Encyclopedia; not to mention that it is in line with the following sentence and the rest of the page and is not used as a source of information. Your personal bias/opinion towards the operation, Pravda, the Soviet Union, etc. doesn't matter and can't serve as an argument or excuse for removing it. Next. The blast site is the blast site, it doesn't need any additional explanation and the source is perfectly clear about what it means, as are other claims in the article. As Zelentsov himself says in the article, "The troops proceeded past the epicenter, outside of the area of severe radioactive contamination". Every sentence you're trying to remove is followed by a reference and can't be ignored: the other bombs, experimental objects and animals, etc. All of this is relevant, significant and followed by references, one can't write an article on this topic without making at least a brief mention of these details. You're neither a veteran nor a scholar and have no right whatsoever to remove what scholars, veterans and declassified documents say in a work edited by a prominent nuclear physicist. If you have some credible, high-quality secondary sources (written/edited by scientists and veterans) that don't fit into the picture, then add them below in a new section (see "Controversy"). Otherwise, your edits here are completely irrational and you can't even explain them in a proper manner. You're removing parts of the text without evening checking them and the sources behind them, calling scientists and veterans "a revisionist historian" and then promoting a revisionist historian as a "better" source, trying to get rid of any mention of the official report, like if it's not related, as well as of different important details without even explaining it, ignoring a number of my arguments, etc. That is absurd, ridiculous and can't be tolerated. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, I am only saying that we should provide some specific information. Sources tell all 45 thousand soldiers took part in the "exercise" (some tell that were 60,000). Saying that only a part of them did something on "the actual site of the explosion" needs a clarification what "the actual site of the explosion" means. As about Pravda, it tells: In accordance with the plan of scientific and experimental works, a test of one of the types of nuclear weapons has been conducted in the Soviet Union in the last few days. The purpose of the test was to examine the effects of nuclear explosion. Valuable results have been obtained that will help Soviet scientists and engineers to successfully solve the task of protecting the country from nuclear attack. OK, all this info is already on the page except that the phrase about "successfully solve the task of protecting the country from nuclear attack" is wrong because there was no any future nuclear attack by another country. As about bringing this to a noticeboard, you are very welcome. BTW, I am not entirely opposed to including this propaganda quotation from Pravda, but it should be placed in proper context (I might do this later). My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit that your arguments are strange and dubious at best and seem like formal excuses for making extremely unconstructive and inappropriate edits. So far, no other person has ever claimed to have had any difficulties with understanding that part of the text. Nobody. Moreover, it is followed by a reference to the source which you can easily check at any moment. "...is wrong because there was no any future nuclear attack by another country" - That's laughable. "Protecting" doesn't mean "preventing", it implies a number of protective measures taken in order to minimize the potential threat of a nuclear disaster. That is, military and civilian experts study the impact of a nuclear explosion and then come up with ideas and proposals how to protect their civilians and military forces from the consequences of a possible nuclear attack on their territory, how radiation affects human health, what protective gears and measures are more effective, etc. That is why other countries did the same thing (more often than in the USSR), that is what the sources tell about the Totskoye exercise, and that was one of the aims of that exercise, as is told in the sources. In its current form, the quotation does not need any comments at all, especially those promoting personal POV and distorting the meaning of the text. As for the rest of your message, the most credible and primary sources, written and edited by scholars and veterans alike, estimate the size of the army at 45,000 men. It's highly unlikely that they all "forgot" some 15,000 soldiers. But if there are any other works of the same value, you're free to add them to the "Controversy" section.

The main issue is that the operation was shrouded in secrecy for decades and now is surrounded by rumors, legends and all kinds of misconceptions, as Zelentsov and others have rightfully noted in their works (Zelentsov warns there are even false "veterans" of the exercise). Hence, we must be very careful to avoid dubious sources. Perhaps it will become a more popular subject of scientific research in the future, but as of today, there are almost no credible works on this topic, except for the main one. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

And a few words about your recent barbaric "contribution". "...you included duplicate content about two additional non-nuclear explosions?" - No, I didn't, there are two references that support certain portions of the article. If both the book and the GRE say that 2+2=4, then I cite both the book and the GRE to support that claim, like other users do. It's normal, you have failed to justify your edit again. Nobody allows you to remove significant and well-sourced information, that's plain vandalism. Stop it immediately, you're just trying to remove what you don't like without having any right to do so, trying to hide what the scholarly source and veterans say about the experimental animals and other things. All vandal edits will be reverted and reported, if necessary. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

When you edit, do you read the text or only edit war? Right now there are two copies of the text (3 phrases long) about it which are identical, word to word (starting from "These bombs used massive TNT charges..."). But whatever. I simply do not have time to discuss this any longer right now. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There were two copies, indeed, but you also removed other parts of the text (e.g., "A few days afterwards...") along with a number of references (including a reference to the GRE). I've restored them and got rid of the copy. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you did not check when you reverted before. OK, but the publication by NYT does not belong to any controversy. This is actually the best source currently on the page (others can be used too though, that one, for example). Great Soviet Encyclopedia is hardly a good source for anything related to politics. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand my remarks at all and are telling nonsense again and again, trying to remove everything you don't like (experimental animals, etc.) while ignoring or misunderstanding my arguments. Stop making unconstructive edits, discuss your actions before editing and stop removing well-sourced content without any explanation and any right to do so. The controversy is not in the publication itself, the word "controversy" here means a contradiction between different opinions on the subject, a debate about how dangerous the operation was (see how that word is used on this page, for example). I'm going to add more memoirs and opinions to that section in order to demonstrate a difference between them. It is the exercise itself, the operation's legacy that is controversial, not the NYT. And you're wrong, the NYT article is clearly not the best source here, because a short secondary source, such as a US newspaper publication from 1993, written by those not familiar with the topic in the early 1990s, is nowhere as credible as a scholarly work by nuclear scientists and veterans themselves, declassified data and scientific examinations. It only retells some Russian sources of the 1990s and makes rough suggestions about what happened in 1954, as there were no scholarly works on that exercise in 1993. The author is a mere American journalist, not a veteran or a nuclear physicist, had no access to any Russian archives and was not a participant of the exercise. Finally, you can't even see a huge difference between the Great Russian Encyclopedia (finished in 2017, written and edited by modern top-ranking scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, see here) and the Soviet Union's Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1981), which is not used as a source and contains zero information on the subject. Much of the information on this topic was published after 1993 and the NYT article, the most credible and comprehensive work to date is the one I use. Not to mention that nobody is talking anything special about politics here or in the article itself. Stop your vandalism and learn how to understand simple words and facts. Otherwise, you're acting like a vandal or a bot who can't even negotiate in a proper manner. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are talking about. I do not mind to including any sourced info to the page, including the "experiments" with animals, memoirs by eyewitnesses like here [4], etc. And it does not matter if the sources are "Russian" or not. I only have one word of caution: the sources written by high-ranking Russian military officials turned "historians" which you call scholarly, are not the scholarly sources, but either biased sources or even should be regarded as an outright disinformation. That is what these guys do for living. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You'd better be sure you're careful with editing, because you tried to remove significant details on the non-nuclear bombs and animals, etc. As for those who turned historians to make a living (?), the work is cowritten and edited by scientists, who have no conflict of interest, published by non-military organizations, contains different, even conflicting conclusions and doesn't promote any specific POV. If you mean S. Zelentsov (who was a key participant of the exercise, so that we cannot ignore him), he does have a certain POV, indeed, as he believes that the operation was safe. However, other parts of the same publication suggest it had flaws and harmful effects. This is because the book is not edited and written by him alone, i. e. it is not "his" book.

I understand your "word of caution" - that's why I made a special section for alternative opinions and details. My idea is that the article should contain a description based on the main RS (which contains the most detailed picture of the exercise) and followed by alternative statements from that and other sources, so that different views will be present together. As of now, we have a story backed by a fine RS and followed by alternative claims below - that's enough and in accordance with WP:NPOV. It shows the two sides of the same coin, without silencing any voices, and leaves the reader to conclude.

P.S. If I have time, I'll probably add contradicting accounts to the last paragraph in order to show the complexity of the situation. E.g., some of the veterans state that safety measures were sufficient, that they had protective gears, radiation dosimeters and traveled in well-protected armored vehicles, while others tell a different story. All this is evident from that monograph and other sources, important for understanding the subject and should be demonstrated. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I mean Zelentsov for example (his memoirs is one thing, but his judgements is quite another). Regardless to what they say, there are numerous sources claiming that many thousands died and/or became sick because of the radiation. No one knows how many because it was a top secret. That should be noted. And of course we know about the misleading nature of the claim it was safe just because radiometers show such and such level of radiation after N hours. If a part of the radioactive contamination comes with your breath as a dust into your body, that's a different story. My very best wishes (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The reliability of those sources is questionable due to the secrecy that have surrounded the operation for decades (and given the fact that some of the vets also participated in other nuclear exercises or eliminated the consequences of the Chernobyl accident, which is why V. Korobushin called for an "individual approach" to each and every veteran), but there is the result of a medical examination included into the book. It is worthy of note and I'll add it later, I hope. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Now you have removed a reference to the GRE, though it is a RS, and other details, like "Soviet scientists received detailed reports...". That's not appropriate. I have to repeat it again: if you have sources that paint a different picture, then add them to the "Controversy" section, without removing anything you personally don't like. "Controversy" is the same neutral term as used in this article, this section is needed for those claims that contradict the main source. The exercise had a controversial legacy, hence the name. You have any alternative statements? Then add them to that section. I'm telling you that again and again but you still can't get the point. I also have to repeat that different views should be present here according to WP:NPOV, so if you have a different claim, then simply add it below, without removing anything above. If B doesn't support A, then add B to A, so that both A and B will be present here. It's as simple as that. Otherwise, you're just removing A, i.e. sourced content and one of the two ideas, which is inappropriate. Your principle is "I disagree with something, so I'll just remove it and leave the article without it". You're not the one who defines what is truth and what is falsity here. "...they increased the fallout from the previous, nuclear blast" - that's WP:OR not supported by anything. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

No, there should be no any "Controversy" section on this page. I reverted your recent creation of this section per WP:BRD, but you started edit warring. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why it shouldn't be there, as it will include different, sometimes conflicting reports on the safety of the operation. However, I have renamed it to avoid misunderstanding. Next time, if you don't understand something and lack enough knowledge on the subject, avoid waging war and making unjustified and unconstructive edits. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You comment and behave as if you own this page. Well, given that admins do not care about it, I too could not care less. You can have it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say exactly the same about you. I have explained my actions. 213.193.14.55 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

This page reads like a Russian press release. Every problem was foreseen and handled, everyone was treated fairly, all the troops were perfectly cared for, no civilian impact, etc. Does anyone seriously believe that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.169.30 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeh, indeed. In reality, that was absolutely terrifying. There is a video with a story by an eyewitness [5] (Russian), and I can see an article in a local newspaper by another witness, a former soldier [6]. According to en eyewitness, "Наш взвод был в 4,2 км от эпицентра взрыва. Кто-то был ближе, кто-то — дальше, другим было поручено находиться в танке или автомобиле. Нам была дана команда: лежать ничком и не поднимать головы. Зловещую тишину нарушил страшный взрыв, от которого затряслась земля. Было психологически тяжело, накрыла волна такого одиночества и беспомощности, страха и ужаса. У меня сползла каска с головы, и я вытащил руки, чтобы ее натянуть. Этих секунд хватило, чтобы получить лучевое облучение кистей рук. Когда в небо на высоту 6 км поднялся ядерный гриб, мы приподнялись и смотрели на это невиданное чудо. Расплата за любопытство — ожог сетчатки глаз, кожи, повреждение слуха от мощной ударной волны. Природа тоже отреагировала незамедлительно: через полчаса после взрыва началась сильная песчаная буря, ветер был такой силы, что песок, превратившийся в стекло, царапал кожу, как наждак. ... После взрыва мы еще две недели были на полигоне, а потом нас отправили в свою часть. Поначалу ничего не болело, но потом стали клоками выпадать волосы, часто текла кровь из носа, болел желудок, покраснела кожа, мои руки стали отекать. Даже небольшой предмет было трудно держать." Google translate from 2nd source:

Our platoon was 4.2 km from the epicenter of the explosion. Someone was closer, someone was farther away, others were instructed to be in a tank or car. We were given the command to lie prone and not raise our heads. The ominous silence was broken by a terrible explosion, from which the earth shook. It was psychologically difficult, a wave of such loneliness and helplessness, fear and horror covered me. My helmet came off my head and I pulled my hands out to put it on. These seconds were enough to receive radiation exposure of the hands. When a mushroom cloud rose into the sky to a height of 6 km, we got up and looked at this unprecedented miracle. Retribution for curiosity - a burn of the retina of the eyes, skin, hearing damage from a powerful shock wave. Nature also reacted immediately: half an hour after the explosion, a strong sandstorm began, the wind was so strong that the sand, which turned into glass, scratched the skin like emery. ... After the explosion, we were at the training ground for another two weeks, and then we were sent to our unit. At first, nothing hurt, but then my hair began to fall out in tufts, blood often flowed from my nose, my stomach hurt, my skin turned red, my hands began to swell. Even a small object was difficult to hold.

My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• NBC Totskoye nuclear exercise.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)