Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:31, 11 July 2007

Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

I just realized that this A-class article is quite up to our FA-class standards. So, without further due - please take a look and comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Prima facie, Piotrus, I have a few comments and suggestions (which, you will note, I do not use as a means to validate an "oppose" vote). One thing I noticed is that the lead section is immense, and gets lost in the details without clarifying, in a clear succession, the essentials (who, what, where). I have made small edits to clarify some of that, but didn't want to risk harming the flow. You can address this yourself by simply condensing the paragraph about the Molotov Pact to a sentence or two (what it was and what it meant for the invasion; perhaps + Poland argued not to have existed any longer), and expanding on it in the "Prelude" section. There also appears to be some overlinking going on, and it seems that terms used tend not to be linked the first time they appear in the text, but in some unusual manner (the second, third, fourth times...), which gives the impression that the text is uncopyedited. The pictures could do with some rearrangement (I have to say it matters less that a pic and its corresponding text do not fall next to each other in the text, than that they cram the text from each side and turn it into a narrow column).

Overall: congrats for what looks to be like a well-referenced and valuable article. Dahn 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Added: also, I don't think that giving links to pages found on the google book search is appropriate or desirable. Dahn 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I will have a go at copyediting the lead tonight. But I must say that I don't agree that it is immemse, because a good lead tends to have three or four paragraphs and act as a summary of the article, which this does. All the same, I think some details of the pact and of the later history of Belarus and Ukraine can be removed without too much loss. I've carried these edits out.qp10qp 11:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I will let Qp10gp, a native speaker, take care of copyeditng. As for the lead, I think that the size is ok and fits WP:LEAD, but if you or others can cut something out, go right ahead. Also, feel free to rearrange the pics if you think some are unnecessary or are in the wrong section, they look fine on my screen. PS. As for Google Print links, I find them very useful - could you elaborate on your criticism of them?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Both Image:German Soviet.jpg and Image:Davidlowrendezvous.png are fair use tagged images lacking fair use rationales for use in this article. Further, since neither image is discussed inline in the article, the justification rationale would seem to be flimsy, as there's nothing for the images to contribute to within the text of the article. The article works fine without the images. --Durin 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As a side note: isn't Image:German Soviet.jpg PD in Germany at least? I honestly don't know. Dahn 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Added rationales.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Image:Wrzesien.gif should be in english. I think the prelude section could warm the reader up a little with some sort of intro sentence. Would History of Poland be a good "main article" link for the prelude section? I don't quite like the sectioning. I personally wasn't interested in the Prelude, however the current structure does not allow me to read only what happened during the actual invasion. The actual invasion part is in the prelude and then the allied reactions come before the main part describing the invasion. Overall the sections don't stand on their own.-Ravedave 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if somebody could translate it, although as a map its not really in need of that much translation. I am not sure what would be a good main article, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact sounds like the best idea, I think. As for the sections, I am afraid I don't understand what you mean: per Qp10gp, the invasion is described in the a section of its own, prelude ends with the sentence about start of the invasion...?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The invasion is only mentioned in the last sentence of the "Prelude" section: "On 17 September 1939, the Red Army crossed the border into Poland." That the article then moves to the allied reaction is an attempt to represent the significance of what had happened: the moment the Soviets crossed the Rubicon, as it were, reactions from all around Europe meant that the die was cast and the World War was underway. To treat these events in this order is good narrative form, in my opinion: and history books often folow this order too. But the other thing to say is that maybe the title of this article raises false expectations in the reader, because really this was a very small military encounter, over and done with in a short time and involving relatively little fighting. "The Soviet Invasion of Poland" is therefore not so much an article about a military campaign but one about a whole set of political and diplomatic complexities which it both resulted from and set in motion. Personally I find these complexities fascinating, and I feel that the article sets them out with hard-won cogency; but I can understand the view that the build up, diplomatic repercussions, and consequences of the invasion fill the bulk of the article rather than the fighting itself, such as it was.qp10qp 12:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have placed "Allied reaction" after the battle details now; and this may be helpful to those who wish to get to the battle details sooner. I've made one or two little adjustments to smoothe this rearrangement.qp10qp 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support another well done article from WP:MILHIST.Sumoeagle179 10:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is not meeting FA standards just yet.
  • The layout is somewhat messy, with several stubby sections ("Allied reaction" and "censorship" come to mind).
  • Bullet lists at the end are ugly. I'm sure those links can be embroidered in the text far smoother and in a much better place (e.g. in the text itself).
  • Copyedit problems:
    • "The over-450,000-1,000,000-strong" - is this English?
    • "On the Polish side, 6,000–7,000 soldiers died fighting the Red Army, and 230,000–450,000 were taken prisoner—230,000 immediately after the campaign and 70,000 more when the Soviets annexed the Baltic States and assumed custody of Polish troops interned there." - stop with all those dashes please...
    • etc..
  • References must have a space after and no before the text etc...
  • Not all dates are wikified as they should be.
  • Numerous POV issues were raised on the talk page and were, as far as I can judge, never corrected. By contrast, some other important issues - like ua/be ethnical reunification, are only skirted. In short, there is still much work to do, both content and format-wise. -- Grafikm 15:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Layout updated - no stubby sections. Bullet lists at the end (references, elinks) are standard, but if you show me an example of an article where it is done better, I will see about updating it Copyedit - I am leaving it to native speaker as mentioned above, same with dashes. I scanned the article and couldn't find any spaces messing reference layout, by all means, if you find any, do fix them (or at list point out here which ones are we talking about). Same with dates. As for POV issues, all discussions at talk have been settled, if you find any new POV issues that or any that were not resolved to your satisfaction, please be more specific. Please note that GA and A reviews were asked to take POV into account and both concluded POV issues are not apparent to this article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Grafikm: Piotrus has almagamated what you called stubby sections with "Aftermath", and I have added some material to the allied-reaction information, in case you felt that it was not sufficient. But to explain my approach, the information was carefully written to be an encyclopedic summary of the allied reaction; it can be extended considerably, of course, if you wish; but for me it is a virtue if an encyclopedia article can encapsulate a complex matter in clear brief, well-referenced prose, which was the intention on the matter of the allied reaction.

Concerning bullet point lists, I have deleted the battles because they are linked in the text, changed the heading to "See also", and cut the "Further reading" section, since there are now so many books in the notes and references for the reader to turn to for further information.

The figures, dashes, etc. are really difficult to express in clear English, but I'll have a go. I don't believe there are many copy-edit issues of that type in the article, though. It is largely written in lucid, fluent prose, I believe.

Numerous POV issues were raised on the talk page and were, as far as I can judge, never corrected. By contrast, some other important issues - like ua/be ethnical reunification, are only skirted.

I rather strongly disagree with this, Grafikm. I spent very many hours of my life (I have 158 edits to this article) picking off the POV material phrase by phrase and re-referencing to sources written in English, mostly by writers with no Polish bias. In the process, I added material about the Belarus and Ukrainian reunification. Look again, and you will see that the matter is specifically dealt with in two paragraphs and a block quotation in the "Aftermath section". In my opinion, to add any more would unbalance the article, since however one may be opposed to the Polish point of view, it would become uncomfortable if the article began to emphasize Belarusian and Ukrainian liberation and reunification issues ahead of the Polish ones, which included the fighting of the actual war and the mass murder and deportation of vast numbers of Polish people. My edits were careful, however, to make clear the Soviet position that concern for and repatriation of Belarusians and Ukrainians was one of their chief aims, and to include the lower estimates for murders and deportations provided from Russian sources. If I had edited the article from a Polish point of view, I would not have done that nor provided the Soviet POV and Ukrainian and Belarusian material which balances the article.

Finally, I would say that my intention in addressing the POV issues raised on the talk page was not to satisfy either a Polish or a Soviet point of view but to give weight to issues in the article in the same proportion that weight is given to them in the history books about this military campaign. When you say that there is still much more to do, I would ask what? I have read a good deal of material about this campaign, and I believe this article summarises it well. However, if you can give some suggestions as to what might be added I will certainly do so. I've asked the same of other critics of the page, and where they have made suggestions, I have acted on them; but too often, I have not been given anything to go on. Any objection here needs to be specific and actionable.qp10qp 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed. Being Belarusian of Western Belarus origin, I could note that the whole article is written exclusively from the Polish POV and all other POV's are edited out from the article by group of Polish users headed by Piotrus.
• The article lacks the following important moments:
  1. The territory of Poland at which Soviet troops entered was previously illegaly occupied by Poland. All Belarusians regarded Soviet troops as liberators from Polish Pilsudsky dictatorship which established regime of sanation on occupied Western Belarus and established concentration camps like Detention Camp Bereza Kartuska. I don't even mention Polish pogroms during which Poles were exterminating all non-Poles. You may look at this photo at which are people hanged by Poles in Belarus http://oldgazette.ru/lib/pogrom/0021.html. Also there are numerous other photos with Polish atrocities.
  2. The article lacks any mentioning of Belarusian partisan movement for the liberation of Western Belarus. It also lacks mentioning of Belarusian resistance movement against Polish occupation. A lot of Belarusians were arrested, executed by Polish occupation authorities. It is completly outrageous that Piotrus is going to rate this article, because later he would use the argument like "This is A-rate article, and you are fresh noob" argument in order to sort out the attempts to add other POV's which should be covered in the article.
• Vlad fedorov 16:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a brief history of the region in the article once, and I could put something like that in again, if you feel the article concentrates too much on the actual campaign. Most of the things you mention do not seem to me about the invasion: what happened was that a Soviet army invaded Poland (you may call it a liberation, and that point of view is represented in the article: but I must tell you that many history books call it an invasion and so Misplaced Pages policy is followed on that score) and as a result three things happened: many Poles were killed in battle or prisons or deported; most western Belarusians and Ukrainians were incorporated into new soviet rpublics, and World War two was truly set in motion. All these things are covered in the article, and it is made clear that the Soviets and Ukrainians and Belarusians regarded the campaign as a liberation; there are also cartoons and photos to that effect.

You are arguing for an expansion of the article into issues of the Polish occupations of parts of Belarus and Ukraine. These can be mentioned in a little pre-history, and I will look at doing that, but any more will unbalance the article, which is about this campaign. The article is not written from an exclusively Polish point of view: did you not notice that a large number of non-Polish sources are used? And that Soviet POV is stated rather than doubted. The article's position is set out in the lead: "The Soviet military operation, which the Politburo called "the liberation campaign", led to the incorporation of western Ukrainians and western Belarusians into the new expanded Soviet Ukrainian and Byelorussian republics". I can assure you that Polish bias could not have produced that sentence.qp10qp 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

" it is made clear that the Soviets and Ukrainians and Belarusians regarded the campaign as a liberation". Actually, this is incorrect :> The article notes that it was Soviet propaganda which attempted to portray it as such (albeit I don't think this is stressed strongly enough; at the very least the sentence you quote above ("which the Politburo called "the liberation campaign"") should be copied into the article, as currently it violates the principle that lead should summarize the article, but should not introduce information not repeated in the article (cursory search for Politbiuro shows it is mentione donly in lead...)), and a paragraph in the aftermath notes that in fact Ukrainian and Belarusian support was mixed at best.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no correct or incorrect when it comes to things like this, in my opinion. The way to approach it is in neutral language, rather than with qualifications such as "but this was propaganda", etc. The readers then see what happened for themselves and make their own judgement whether this was a liberation or not; any nudging would introduce POV, and we shouldn't underestimate the interpretive powers of the readers. As for whether the support was "mixed at best", that may apply more to what happened later: when the Poles were first defeated, it appears that the Belarusians and Ukrainians were pleased. The article shows that but also mentions some of the later problems they faced. I think that gets the balance right, without rewriting what happened at the time according to what happened later.qp10qp 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vlad Fedorov. Please, do not be silly. The photo you have linked was taken in Mozyr (as the description says), and dear sir, Mozyr was not part of Poland in the interbellum.

As for Belarusian partisan movement in the interbellum - never heard of it. I know about general Bulak-Balachowicz (hope got the name right), but never heard about Belarussian guerilla in Poland. Never heard of executions of Belarussians in the interbellum either. Why do you say the territory was illegally occupied by Poland? Ever heard of Traty of Riga? Bereza Kartuska was not for Belarussians only, but mostly for Polish political prisoners and it was not a concentration camp for God's sake. Surely, Siberian camps were much more convenient for Belarussian patriots I pressume. Tymek 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz. Indeed, he represented the pro-Polish Belarusian faction allied with Poland during Polish-Soviet war, IIRC his forces numbered about 5,000. I don't think Soviet Union had any pro-independent Belarus forces in its ranks... but this is a bit OT, since we are discussing events that took place almost 20 years later.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vlad, please be more civil and assume more good faith - your claims that I assessed this article as 'A' class myself is obviously false (it was assessed by WP:MILHIST team), and your speculation about how I'd deny new editors access to the article is quite offensive and obviously false to anybody who checks its talk page.

As for your (unsourced...) POV content comments: 1) as the (sourced) article makes clear, only some, not all, Belarusians supported the Soviets 2) I agree it would indeed by worthwile to mention poor relations between minorities and Polish government in the article. Perhaps some relevant fragments can be moved from Tadeusz Hołówko or similar articles, although in most cases they concentrate on the more numerous and organized Ukrainian faction 3) Sanacja, Piłsudski, Beraza, pogroms - all bear little relevance to the article; Piłsudski was actually known to be a stabilizing influence and was trying to improve the relations with the minorities 4) Belarusian resistance against Poland - per my comment no.2 I am not aware of any notable organization like Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists on Belarusian side, I certainly never heard anything about a 'resistance movement' - OUN was at best what we today would call a 'terrorist/extremist pro-indepence faction' receiving support only from a small minority, and again, any Belarusian equivelent would be even less fitting for 'resistance organization'. I checked Davies, who in his God's Playground has a paragraph on Belarusian minority: he mentions increasing repressions, but no executions, nor any armed resistance. He does note, however, that Belarusian minority had relatively small 'political awarness', and recommends further reading of Nicholas P. Vakar Belarussia: The Making of a Nation, unfortunatly I don't have access to that publication ATM but if you could recommend any English or Polish readings on Belarusian minority in interwar Poland, I'd be happy to take a look at it. PS. No Soviet sources, please.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the article now mentions growing tensions and conflicts between Polish government and minorities and its impact on minorities attitude during the Soviet invasion. If sources are provided for any other content (POV) related issues, I'll be happy to incorporate them into the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • I don't think that the article has sufficient coverage of Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Russian POV's. Again, everything is covered from the POlish POV exclusively.
    • Piotrus argument is like if it is not Polish POV, than it is Soviet absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Your problem Piotrus is not a few strokes mentioning other POVs exist.
    • For example even the name of the article doesn't fit other POV's. other than Polish. The name of the article is given absolutely from Polish POV. You try to make it everything clear, but it is not.
    • Why you haven' written that Polish goverment before this "invasion" was cooperating with Soviet Union by exchaning political prisoners, and namely Polish government extradited Belarusian national democrats to Soviets which were executed subsequently. Poland was cooperating with Soviets in the matter of Belarusian national movement extermination.
    • Another issue is cooperation of Poland with Germany and namely - signing of Hitler Pilsudki Pact in Warsaw in 1937 during the visit of Goebbels in Warsaw. You was very quick to mention Mlotov-Ribbentrop act by considerable amount of text, but in "good faith" of course failed to describe in full details and comment Hitler-Pilsudski Pact? Why this important moment - is not covered by your article pretenting to be A-rated? Vlad fedorov 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite your claims to the contrary, non-Polish POV is covered extensively, the article relies mostly on Western (not Polish) sources, as well as on the work of historians such as Ukrainian Orest Subtelny. The name, "invasion", is used by majority of Western sources. The minorities issue in now mentioned, and there is no need to go into details (for the same reason, OUN assassinations of Polish politicians are not discussed). Feel free to expand the historical section of Belorussian minority in Poland with that information. And since Józef Piłsudski died in 1935, I very much doubt he would sign any pact with Hitler in 1937. Again, you are welcomed to present a single source to back up your statements...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Extremely one-sided article, beggining from the POV title to the actual coverage of events. --Kuban Cossack 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In what way? Please give me something to work on.qp10qp 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Per Qp10gp, please be more specific. If you look at the top of the page, you'll note that Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. . -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I know it's useless to vote in the face of a crowd of traditional Piotrus-supporters, but I would like to repeat once again that {{POV-title}} is mandatory for this article. Either we term this campaign, the Polish-Soviet War, the so-called Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) as "invasions" or we avoid loaded language in the titles of all three articles. It is absolutely inacceptable to push one's POV by hook or by crook. The two instances of pure Polish aggression against Russia (or Muscovy, as Piotrus prefers to put it) are misrepresented in Misplaced Pages as border conflicts, while the act of reunification of Eastern Ukraine with Western Ukraine, of Eastern Belarus with Western Belarus is deemed an "invasion".
• I know the term is supposed to be referenced, but so were the titles of each Polish invasion of Russia, which did not prevent Piotrus and his party from engineering the retention of their present titles. Put briefly, each Russian-Polish conflict instigated by Poland is cast in Misplaced Pages as a "war" or "uprising", each conflict instigated by Russia/USSR is trumpeted as an "invasion". The same bias runs throughout the article: where can we learn about Poland's overtures with Hitler? about the efforts of Polish diplomacy to prevent the alliance of Great Britain, France, and Soviet Union against Germany? I see the relevant data is carefully suppressed in order to represent Poland as an eternal selfless victim, as is normally done in the articles authored by Piotrus. --Ghirla 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Other then criticism of article's authors, and unsourced claims in any case irrelevant to the subject of the article, do you have any actionable objections? PS. I really would like to learn about those attempts to prevent the alliance, and the "overtunes" - please suggest appropriate readings (no Soviet sources, please). Oh, and I do like the "Poland's overtures with Hitler" - even if fictional, it does make a nice contrast to the "Soviet-Nazi Symphony, you know :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC) PS. Diplomacy, including objections by Poland and several other governments to a Soviet proposal that they'd defend them if Soviet troops were to be stationed in them, is mentioned in the first para of the prelude... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As I'm sure you know, the Soviet-Nazi Symphony was inspired by the Polish-Nazi Étude, known as the Partition of Czechoslovakia. Your attitude "no Soviet sources, please" invites the retort "no Polish sources, please". --Ghirla 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I certainly would not use any Polish sources published officially during Polish People's Republic with regards to that subject. We have several sources (including Western academic ones) that point out that Soviet sources (and by those, I mean Soviet bloc sources) on tthat event are highly biased and influence by party line and propaganda. I double-checked to be sure, but AFAICT there is only one ref used from that period, and it is a bibuła by a respected Polish general and witness of the invasion, republished after 1991 and thus a reliable source. And this is off topic, but Partitions of Czechoslovakia was hardly orchestrated by Poland. Of course, you are more then welcome to present sourced contradicting me and add them to the relevant articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
        • There is no material difference between the sources published during the period of Polish People's Republic, the CIA/NGO propaganda, or the witch-hunters sponsored by the nationalist Kaczynski regime (Institute of National Rememberance, etc). They are all biased, in their own way, and have their own axes to grind, but there are some objective records that may be found in all three groups. Your attempts to make generalizations or to impeach a large swath of sources from a given period/country that you dislike intensely are intellectually dishonest. That's how "invasion"- and "massacre-talk" appears and infiltrates your articles. --Ghirla 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Most Western academic sources call those events invasions, and Katyn a massacre, and your claims that they are CIA or Kaczynski's propaganda are not going to be ever treated seriously. On the other hand, plenty of Western academic works have concluded that there are extremely strong biases in Eastern Block works, and you are not going to change that either. Oh, and work Institute of National Remembrance is also quite reliable, and again, your dislike of their study of communist crimes is not going to change that, neither.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, most of your comments do not seem to be about this article, and I would very much welcome any material you can provide or guide me to with regard to this particular article. As it stands, I believe its language is painstakingly neutral. Please do not assume that I have blindly used words like "invasion" and "massacre". The word "invasion" is used by most of the western sources I have looked at; but I have taken into account the alternative view of the campaign by mentioning it in the article several times. What more can I do in following Misplaced Pages policy? I researched the word "massacre" as it applies to Katyn and found that to be an established word used to describe it in history books, which is why I believe its use in the article. This is not "massacre-talk" because other deaths and murders are described in different terms in the article: it applies specifically to the mass murders at Katyn.qp10qp 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose at present Comment:

• I was one of the reviewers who originally reviewed the article during its peer review. I had several comments for improvement then, but now the article is going for FA it must satisfy much more demanding criteria. I have several problems with the article as it stands that I would like to see addressed. Most are issues of neutrality or grammar/prose/good writing:
• I personally find articles that use a single mixed reference set for both footnotes (editorial asides or notes) and citations (note of source of information) poor - it makes it impossible to know for each numbered footnote if you need to click on it to read a footnote or else if there is a citation only for that number. It also has the effect of falsely inflating the list of references when in fact many references are simply comments rather than citations of facts - it makes an article therefore seem more heavily cited than it actually is. I would strongly advocate using a system such as that used in War against Nabis of splitting the footnotes and citations into different sections. I will provide more detailed comments later, but this is the main issue I have with it at the moment. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note we have no 'just footnotes', we either have direct references or footnotes that contain quotations and/or several references and/or explanation of some contradictions within them. Thus all references are in fact references, using a style found in many academic books (where a footnote may give you just a source, or a source and a discussion of it). I am not aware of a mechanism that would allow me to divide inline references, generated by cite.php (recommended by WP:CITE) in such a way that we could have plain references in one section, and more traditional footnotes, marked differently in text, in another. If you know how to do so, please let me know.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, using templates hcref and cnote it is possible to do exactly this - see War against Nabis for an example of this in use. I don't see the need for mixed footnotes - all of your references can easily be rewritten as either footnotes or citations, this is not mandated by FA requirements but I personally feel that it would be of great benefit to the article - it makes clear what statements are being precisely cited and which merely have notes, some of whose content may be cited. It almost seems like a sly way to not have to cite a fact whilst appearing to cite it - state in the article "5 plus 5 equals 11", cite it, and then in the mixed footnote/reference, have a discussion of the number 5 and the number 11 with cites, but not actually cite the statement made in the article. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Doh, I should've looked at the Nabis article before replying :) I completely missed the development of those templates, but I throughly support their use; I will see about converting the article ref system into them soon.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Piotrus, I am glad to see that you are happy to take this suggestion on board. As a result of various changes below, I am happy to change my "oppose" to a "comment". Once the above is implemented, will be happy to change my "comment" to a "support". - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am also most nervous about the degree of POV being claimed against the article. I would like to see this issue settled before the article makes FA. This should be done in a proper fashion - if editors have allegations of bias they shold point out the contested statements, provide opposing statements with citations and then rework the statement in the form "A belevies X (cite 1) but B believes Y (cite 2)". Whatever the disagreement, there is a scholarly way to resolve this. This should be done NOW, during the article's FAC candidacy, to remove any potential bias if and when it goes FA. it is not acceptable for this controversy to continue if and when the article makes FA status. My own point of view as someone reading the article but knowing little of the history it recounts is that the article is slightly biased. Not in that it states facts incorrectly, but that words are clearly chosen to slant the editorial aangle of the article. Many of the words need making more neutral and less loaded - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC) - this seems to have been addressed now

Indeed, if proper sources are presented that would suggest some POV is dominant (or missing) from the article, we will be happy to use them. User:Qp10qp, who, as far as I know, is not a Pole, has done a great job incorporating Soviet POV into the article, and I trust he will do so if new sources are presented. If you or any other editor would like to do some POV-improvements to the article, you are most welcomed: unfortunately as far as my biased sense is concerned, the article sounds neutral already.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• This seems to have been addressed now - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Needs a copyedit - eg in the very first sentence "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation which started" - this should be either "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation that started" or "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation, which started" in order to be grammatically correct.

Again, I am leaving such matters in the hand of native speakers (and once again, thank you, User:Qp10qp, for the help with that!).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I do feel someone still needs to copyedit this article before it gets FA status, whoever that is - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• In the infobox, why are the polish troop strength given in battalions but the soviet ones in divisions and brigades - this makes comparison difficult especially those who are unfamiliar with the terminology.

Because such data is given by our references, their authors didn't bother to much with standardization, unfortunately. Note that battalions were the highest unit of organization on the Polish side, while the Soviet units were organized on a much higher level. We can perhaps ilink the terms like battalions and divisions, although I don't think they would do much good until we have articles like battalion (Polish 1939) or division (Soviet 1939), those terms cover a really big variety of regional differences in organization, AFAIK.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• If the polish strength is 20,000, then how were 250,000 polish troops captured - again this s in the infobox. This needs explaining or correcting

Please note that infobox also states: "improvised parts of the Polish Army". I have not been able to find any more information on those improvised parts, and this is a short description of a real mess: there were a few reasonably organized formations in the east, but there were also many more retreating in disarray from the Germans, all that created a mass of soldiers, some of which put a resistance but many just surrendered, that were in the end all taken prisoner by the Soviets.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Although the French, for their part, had made many promises to Poland before the German offensive, including air support, these assurances turned out to have been entirely cynical" - this language and similar throughout the article might need adjusting per wikipedia "words to avoid" as taking editorial leeway and not just reporting the facts - "cynical" is passing a value judgement. - FIXED

Agreed (and fixed), I don't think it was a word I added. If you catch any other instances of such POVed language, please let us know so it can be corrected.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• "The Soviets murdered tens of thousands of Polish prisoners of war" - again murder is a perjorative word - "murder" is probably too strong a word here - use "kill", which presents exactly the same fact without passing judgement on it.

I'd leave it to the native speaker, but considering that this refers mostly to the Katyn massacre, which would in turn imply the use of the verb 'massacred', I think murder is neutral enough. But I don't see a big difference between murder and killing in terms of use in English language, so again, I may not be the best person to address this comment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• "The reaction of Poland's two main allies, France and Britain, was muted, since neither wanted a confrontation with the Soviet Union at that stage" - this is uncited and should be easy to cite if this is the official reason given or something reported in a published work elsewhere. If this is not the official reason given but a supposition of the author then this is original research and should not be included. Was it practical for Britain or France to intervene militarily at this point? Did they have any forces in place? - FIXED

Good catch, again it was not a statement added by myself. I will look for refs, and hopefully the editor who added it will surface here, if nothing is found I will remove this in a few days. Found a ref.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• "The British evaded their obligations under the terms of the Anglo-Polish Agreement" - again evaded is a value judgement - since there was no declaration of war, as stated in the article, it is hard to say whether the mutual assistance treaty would have applied. - FIXED

Again, fixed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• "British Foreign Secretary Halifax bluntly told him that Britain was free to make up its own mind whether to declare war on the Soviet Union" - citation? - FIXED

Again, fixed :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Lastly, I understand how frustrating the FA process can be and would like to commend the article's authors on taking the article this far. Chin up! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to hear some words of encouragement :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support - a well-written, thoroughly referenced account. Objections that the Soviet POV is not well enough presented seem tendentious. One question, though: why is Template:Campaignbox Polish September Campaign present, given that refers to the German invasion? Biruitorul 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again that Piotrus-style argument: "If it is not Polish, than it is Soviet". How about national Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian resistance movements against Polish occupation? Vlad fedorov 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My advice: write something about those movements! I'd like to know about them myself, and if what you write meets the usual standards, then by all means let's keep it in the article. Biruitorul 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where to write about? Piotrus would delete everything immediately!Vlad fedorov 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I think this article is better than many other former featured articles. Please note a huge amount of work invested here. The sourcing is excellent and illustrations are great. The subject is very difficult and fuels opposite opinions. The article describes Soviet invasion of Poland as seen by contemporary History and refutes old Soviet propaganda. The latter helps to follow WP:NPOV policy. Nobody is using pseudo-science like Lysenkoism for teaching genetics. Old Soviet propaganda is a kind of pseudo-science or more precisely a professional disinformation that has no place in this Encyclopedia. Unlike many other articles in WP, this article is free from Soviet falsifications of history.Biophys 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Belarusian national movement, as well as Ukrainian and Lithuanian was both against Poland and Soviet Union occupation. And I had argued about the total absense of these POV. However, Soviet Union POV whatever it is, should also be present if you pretend to be NPOV really. Please pay attention that Biophys now expilicitly advocates elimination of NPOV from the article. Vlad fedorov 04:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to comment that NPOV comes around by mentioning every viewpoint and putting it in context, not by culling out viewpoints that you disagree with or term pseudo-science - you should not be taking the editorial position of culling out certain viewpoints but putting them in and contrasting the various viewpoint - this is the path to neutrality. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely my point above. It is tendentious and intellectually dishonest to suppress material about the strenuous (not to say hysterical) attempts of pre-war Polish diplomacy to prevent the rapprochement between the West and Soviets against Hitler, a counterproductive attitude that ultimately resulted in the Soviet-Nazi Pact. Instead of picturing Poland as a victim of unmotivated aggression, we should have some words about Poland being one of Hitler's jackals during the partition of Czechoslovakia. Where's the relevant data about the revanchist plans of the Polish General Staff to invade the Soviet Union in the late 1930s? We have discussed it all over Misplaced Pages, but the article prefers not to mention these embarrassing points at all. That's why it reads like a tool of anti-Russian Kaczynski propaganda. --Ghirla 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet POV is discussed. So is modern Belorussian and Ukrainian (we even have a big quote from Orest Subtelny, and it is the only quote in the main body). As I said above and you ignored, Polish diplomacy rejection of Soviet offer of "help" is discussed in the first para of the prelude. Partitions of Czechoslovakia are irrelevant to this article (feel free to show a source that shows some connection between those events). Same with the plans you discuss: the only plan I am aware of, Plan Wschód, a recently created article that I will link from the Soviet Invasion shortly, was a defensive plan. Oh, and we am still waiting for you to present a single source to back up your POVs...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This is a great article, very well put together. I held back from fully endorsing it to see how the presentation issues were being addressed -- but now, after a few days of work (some in response to the constructive criticism above), it all looks much tighter and smooth. (A technical note: I especially like how it looks with the notes on two columns, but this works on only one of the browsers I use; anyone knows how to make that work always?) As for the above objections based on the Soviet point of view, I find them lacking in merit: what exactly is the beef there? I couldn't quite tell. To sum up: a hearty thumbs up for an FA — this article well deserves it. Turgidson 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)