Talk:Polish–Soviet War/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Ukrainian SSR

Ukrainian SSR was not recognized until 1945. It was a Communist puppet state of Russian SFSR. All of the flags of that republic is unofficial as well as the mentioning of it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not recognized by who or whom? Surely it existed if it became one of the signing founding members of the USSR on the 30th of December 1922? In fact, when was the USSR officially acknowledged quite late, but it still existed and histeory continued to be made in the period in which it was not officially recognised.--Bandurist (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction on the "Beat the Bolshevik" poster translation

Doesn't the title says in Polish, Strike, (or smite) the Bolshevik? Beat does not quite translate right, IMHO. Zapiens (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Name ???

Hello,

This article is not about a conflict between Poland and the Soviets, it's about what happened in Ukraine in the latter part of WWI. The name actually seems to be an off-hand creation by an editor [[1]], which was never challenged nor supported.

I suggest "The Ukrainian Civil War 1919-1921".

Horlo (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. I suggest you start by trying to rename WWII into "The Ukrainian Civil War 1939-1945", first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War and Soviet influence on western peace movements

Please see Talk:Soviet-run_peace_movements_in_the_West#On_the_Russian_Revolution_and_the_Polish-Soviet_War_section. There is a discussion as to whether Soviet foreign propaganda of 1920s should be discussed in that article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No references nor sources on Polish casualties

Quite a long time ago I posted some well-sourced numbers on Polish casualties (it was a list of all killed and dead from other reasons). Later somebody judged those numbers as less credible than modern estimates (my sources were casualty counts from 1930s) and edited them, but al least his numbers were sourced. The present number of 9x thousands killed is not sourced at all and, moreover, it is much higher than any estimations of Polish losses I have seen. Was it posted by some Russian nationalist or by whom?
Peter558 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at article history, see when and what was removed, and list those changes here. We can discuss them and (preferably) restore the sourced information. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

[2], [3]. Reverted. --illythr (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

I think this article falls woefully short of FA now. To wit, the following need to be addressed:

• Image stacking issues. The picture of Józef Piłsudski juts down too far, creating a crapton of blank space in the Prelude section.
• "With the success of the Greater Poland Uprising in 1918, Poland had re-established its statehood for the first time since the 1795 partition." — paragraph is unsourced.
• "By late February the Soviet westward advance had come to a halt. Both Polish and Soviet forces had also been" — unsourced.
• Two one-sentence paragraphs at end of "Diplomatic front, part 1" should be combined.
• Shouldn't the images be stagged instead of all spammed on the right side?
• "String of Soviet Victories" needs copyedit — it begins with 3 one-sentence paragraphs. Also, the paragraph beginning "Soviet forces moved forward at the remarkable rate…" is unsourced.
• "The Soviet armies in the center of the front fell into chaos. " — two-sentence paragraph with too much space above. Combine with another paragraph.
• "Battle of Warsaw" needs a copy-edit; several sentences in a row begin with "the".
• Last two paragraphs of "Aftermath" are one-sentence paragraphs.
• There are about a bajillion red links in the article, including the sources section. These should be checked to see if they have potential as articles.
• I pruned out a couple personal homebrew websites from the external links.
• This reference, "A. Mongeon, The Polish–Russian War and the Fight for Polish Independence, 1918–1921. Retrieved 21 July 2007.", should not link to the home.golden.net page.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I'll add those issues to my to-do list for the coming weeks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

To add to this, I think the whole article needs a good copy edit for grammar and better prose. I'm afraid that there are numerous examples where it appears the text has been written by a non-native speaker of English (eg. "the western Europe", "the question of victory", "Polish soldiers fallen in the Battle of Warsaw"). This is not a criticism, but it doesn't do much for a Featured Article's status. Ranger Steve ^Talk 15:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I tried fixing capitalization of western; issues by TPH will be addressed in the FAR. I don't see what's wrong with the two other examples, but I'd welcome assistance from an native English speaker. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian/Soviet names for the war

The following sentence was removed as lacking references and tagged since 2008. I think it would be helpful if a Russian speaker could find a reference to add it back. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Soviet historians often called it the "War against White Poland" or considered it either a part of the Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War or of the Civil War itself."

POV - behaviour of some commanders like Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz[111] or Vadim Yakovlev.

Why no Soviet commander has been listed here? Isaac Babel's 1920 Diary is quoted in this article only once, against Vadim Yakovlev. It's POV to reduce the diery to the critics. Forrest Gump believed "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." But some editors are smarter, they always get what they want. Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The movies

There is a new Polish 3D movie and the Russians want to produce a movie about Soviet POWs in Polish camps. Polish POWs aren't important for anyone.Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Maps ?

Could someone please post some maps showing the location and movement(s) of the various major military units that were involved in the war?

Cwkmail (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Culled intro

I have cut down the over long introduction for this article moving some material into a 'Historical assessment' section. My reasoning is that it is far too long (roughly the same as that for WW2), it uses the same words repeatedly (eg 'state'), and much of the material should be in the main article not the intro. Rsloch (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

Confirming as B-class for WP:POLAND, per milhist and other reviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Polish victory?

Can the war really be considered a Polish victory? It seems more indecisive, since both sides got ~50% of the disputed territory and it ended in a kind of truce. TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Please search this talk page and its archives for this phrase to find several lengthy discussions on this topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Query @ Wheeke category deletion

You are deleting Category:Aftermath of World War I: sorry if I am being dim, but I don't understand why.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I presume you refer to [4]. Ping User:Wheeke, this category seems relevant and its removal merits an explanation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note the hierarchy of the categories! Category:Polish–Soviet War ist already a sub-category of Category:Aftermath of World War I. Now the hierarchy is more simply and stringent.--Wheeke (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Poland, whose statehood had just been re-established by the Treaty of Versailles "

If this statement, in the opening section, is correct, then how is the war claimed to have started in February 1919 when the Treaty was not concluded until June 1919 ? The answer to this apparent chronological inconsistency, is that the polish people had succeeded in re-establishing their state using their own initiatives.Eregli bob (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@User:Eregli bob: good observation; how would you propose to rephrase the current sentence? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Citations

I see that this article is a GA nominee, but many paragraphs are missing citations. I also noticed at least one "citation needed" tag. I suggest these be corrected, otherwise the article may fail a GA review. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polish–Soviet War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges

@Iazyges: To me, these citation needed issues strike as a serious problem. Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Immediate failures list them as a reasons to immediately fail a GA nomination. They certainly indicate a serious problem with GA criterion 2. (verifiability and no OR), that I can't comprehend would make anyone be "all for" a GA status. And there's not just "a few", but a considerable number of 22.

Also, what missing "battle pages" are you talking about? You are reviewing this article, not any other page. Having red links bears no relevance to any GA criteria (it does for FA criteria, but that's not what the nomination is about).

As an editor with less than 1,000 edits you are a fairly new one. While there's nothing bad about that per se, I have some doubts about whether you have thoroughly familiarized yourself with the GA criteria and instructions, and the underlining policies. GA reviews are conducted against a set of specific criteria and not an overall impression. The instructions clearly tell that having citation needed tags is a serious problem. The underlying policy, WP:V, is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and ignoring it in a process like GA reviews is a serious lapse. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Finnusertop I will admit that it has been a while since i have viewed the policies of the GA nomination, I will withdraw my comment and re-familiarize myself with them. Iazyges (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges (New)

• (Should terms be true or false) | Policy number.Iazyges' organization numbers | Terms | Is it true or false?

• (✓)1a.1 Clear? (✓)
• (✓)1a.2 Concise? (✓)
• (✓)1b.1 Correct style? (✓)
• (✓)2a.2 Has all citations? (✗✗)
• (✓)2b.1 In text citations from reliable sources? (✓)
• (✗)2c.1 Contains original research? (✗)
• (✗)2d.1 Plagiarism or copyright violation? (✗)
• (✓)3a.1 Adresses main topic?(✓)
• (✓)3b.1 Stays focused? (✓)
• (✓)4a.1 Neutral? (✓)
• (✓)5a.1 Stable? (✓)
• (✓)6a.1 Images correctly tagged and copyright usage? (✓)
• (✓)6b.1 Images relevant? (✓)

Overall it meets most of the standards, except for 2, which qualifies it for immediate failure, so at such a time as all citations or most of them are there, it will qualify for it, but as of now it doesn't. Iazyges (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with reviewer. The nominator does not seem to understand the GA requirements, and further, is not editing the article. It sadly seems like a Ï like this article, it seems long, can it be a GA?" type of a nomination by an editor who hasn't replied here despite 48h since this review was posted :(. The answer is quick fail. If the nominator wants this to be a GA, s/he needs to spend several days improving this article by adding and verifying citations, then it can be resubmitted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment

Based on the above, it is clear that the intention was to fail the article, but the final steps of the process were not taken. As this was a drive-by nomination by someone who did not consult with the regular editors as to whether the article was ready for GA status and what still needed to be done, I'm going to complete the process and register the decision with the FailedGA template on the article talk page. If the nominator wishes to renominate the article, the article's various problem templates should certainly be addressed first, and the consultation (mentioned at WP:GANI) needs to be done. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Maps

I like the way the inclusion of a number of maps shows the progress of the war quite well - but it would make things even clearer if there was a map that shows the borders after the end of the war as well. Is there one available? Lennart97 (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Biased lead

The lead describes Pilsudski's goals. Pilsudski had however to cooperate with the nationalists. Let's compare History of Poland (1918–1939). Opinions varied among Polish politicians as to how much of the territory a new, Polish-led state should contain and what form it should take. Józef Piłsudski advocated a democratic, Polish-led federation of independent states — while Roman Dmowski leader of the Endecja movement represented by the National Democratic Party, set his mind on a more compact Poland composed of ethnic Polish or 'polonizable' territories. (Piotr S. Wandycz, The Polish Question"'in The Treaty of Versailles : a reassessment after 75 years) Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

over the city of Vilnius

The city had several names at that time.Xx236 (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Lithuanian participation

It is very odd that Lithuania has been put side by side with Soviets. The reason is just some speculation about giving "loggistic support" and no further proof or detailisation. Furthermore, its hard to conceive that any support could have been given as the main transport artery Petrograd-Warsaw railwail was under Soviet control

On the other hand, if Latvia has been put on the Polish side, why not Lithuania? In the spring of 1919 the two forces fought side by side in a common front. At the beginning the realtions were fine. A little read here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian%E2%80%93Soviet_War#Polish_offensive

I suggest either removing Lithuania from the Soviet side or adding it on both sides (with explanations) Gadafijus (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with this picture?

Infobox contains Polish-soviet war montage.jpg, made from 5 different pictures, and description of this .jpg is description of picture containing 6 parts.

Lien Shan (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the foto on the base right to be a fake. There is a larger picture in the internet with the commanding officer standing upright behind. He and the photographer seem to be without any shelter. This picture should be taken in a manoeuvre. Fibe101 (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Question of Trotsky and Dzerzhinsky in soviet leadership

As I noticed I got involved in edit war with @Orczar I thought it might be good to discuss this issue. I do not see any reason to highlight Leon Trotsky in the list of soviet leadership as his position of military commissar was nowhere near position of highlighted supreme soviet leader Vladimir Lenin nor the position of highlighted Polish supreme leader Józef Piłsudski. If we highlight Trotsky then using this logic we have to highlight also two Polish Ministers of Military Affairs from that time, namely general Józef Leśniewski (1919-1920) and general Kazimierz Sosnowski (1921-1923) the first one being not even mentioned in the list of Polish leadership. I do not recall seeing any war minister being highlighted on leadership lists in any war article on Wikipedia. Ministers are not independent leaders, they are subordinate to their leaders and Trotsky was subordinate to Lenin as was the rest of listed soviet leadership.

Regarding Felix Dzerzhinsky he is worth mentioning in the list of soviet leaders as he was not just a member of Polrewkom as @Orczar suggested but he was de facto leader and at the same time commander of Cheka thus he was directly involved in war on soviet side. Both these organisations focused on fight against Polish statehood during the war, Polrewkom unsuccessfully tried to organise alternative Polish-communist authority and Polish Red Army under soviet supervision but communists did not gain public support in occupied territories and it's listed as a party to the war what makes Dzerzhinsky a soviet leader/commander more worth highlighting than Trotsky. @Orczar asked what source points to his leadership in the war. Literally every single one that indicates his leadership in Polrewkom and Cheka, I believe this is more than obvious. --Utryss (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)