| Revision as of 16:01, 4 May 2006 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,667 editsNo edit summary | Revision as of 16:04, 4 May 2006 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,667 edits →POVNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == POV == | == POV == | ||
| The following fragment is a laughable POV: ''"the great champion of the Poles. His love for a Polish woman cost him the Russian crown."'' For reasons why, see references that I recently added, for example, (which seems to be written by a Russian, too). As Balcer pointed out, the Britannica article is almost a 100 years old, uses even older, imperial Russia references and thus should not be considered NPOV when it comes to Poland.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | The following fragment is a laughable POV: ''"the great champion of the Poles. His love for a Polish woman cost him the Russian crown."'' For reasons why, see references that I recently added, for example, (which seems to be written by a Russian, too). As Balcer pointed out, the Britannica article is almost a 100 years old, uses even older, imperial Russia references and thus should not be considered NPOV when it comes to Poland. In addition, , which removed my reference as well as copyedit changes (adding caption, removing empty section, etc.), is borderline 'v'-word - please refrain from such blatant reverts, and discuss your POV here first, preferably citing modern academic sources.--] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:04, 4 May 2006
POV
The following fragment is a laughable POV: "the great champion of the Poles. His love for a Polish woman cost him the Russian crown." For reasons why, see references that I recently added, for example, this (which seems to be written by a Russian, too). As Balcer pointed out, the Britannica article is almost a 100 years old, uses even older, imperial Russia references and thus should not be considered NPOV when it comes to Poland. In addition, Ghirla's revert, which removed my reference as well as copyedit changes (adding caption, removing empty section, etc.), is borderline 'v'-word - please refrain from such blatant reverts, and discuss your POV here first, preferably citing modern academic sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)