| Revision as of 06:51, 30 April 2004 editJerzy (talk | contribs)57,486 edits In what sense was not war against Russia?← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:30, 30 April 2004 edit undoJerzy (talk | contribs)57,486 edits Two see alsos and an incoherant tangential 'graph removed to hereNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| * Russia was involved, but it was not "against" Russia, e.g. because Poland did not intiate it and just defended itself? | * Russia was involved, but it was not "against" Russia, e.g. because Poland did not intiate it and just defended itself? | ||
| IMO, the term just implies a war involving two countries, like the ], where no one seriously believes Spain was the aggressor.--]] 06:51, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC) | IMO, the term just implies a war involving two countries, like the ], where no one seriously believes Spain was the aggressor.--]] 06:51, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| The following text in ] | |||
| : It was also important time for ]. Many can argue that the final defeat of the Soviet army was caused by Stalin's intrigue. Moreover, in the final stage of the war, he was forced to retreat in panic. Three groups of people, that he met at his way then: Ukrainian peasants, Polish communists, and Polish officers were later subject of persecutions. Ukrainian peasants in millions were starving to death during famine organised by Stalin ]-]. Polish communists were decimated, and Polish minority deported to Kazakhstan during Stalin's purges ]-]. Polish officers were murdered en masse in the ] in 1940. | |||
| * belongs in some other article, and | |||
| * is too ill-defined to say what the article would be. | |||
| Not ready for prime time. | |||
| When a "see also" is in the middle of text, as with | |||
| : (''See also'': ]) | |||
| it is probably always a bad link. (If you can't mention what you're linking to in a declarative sentence, you can't justify linking them.) In this case, it must be insinuating genocidal intent; find a way to say who says so and their justifications for it. Also, in this case, ] makes no mention of these events, and is irrelevant beyond the dictionary definition of "genocide". More connection is needed before linking. | |||
| Similarly with | |||
| : ''See also'': ] | |||
| Tell us why this is a better link than ]. | |||
| <br>--]] 07:30, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:30, 30 April 2004
Shouldn't this article be at Polish-bolshevik war instead? The war ended some two years prior to creation of the Soviet Union and the term, although quite frequently used (even in Polish sources), is simply misleading. I'm thinking of moving it. Any objections?Halibutt 20:28, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- IMO needs change to something else; Russo-Polish also seems appropriate. How about Google-testing the two names. (IMO Bolshevik needs capital B, if you go that route.) --Jerzy(t) 06:00, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
- Russo is not apriopriate, since it was not war against Russia, i believe ;) Szopen 06:28, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying that
- Russia was not involved, or
- Russia was involved, but it was not "against" Russia, e.g. because Poland did not intiate it and just defended itself?
IMO, the term just implies a war involving two countries, like the Spanish-American War, where no one seriously believes Spain was the aggressor.--Jerzy(t) 06:51, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)
The following text in the article
- It was also important time for Stalin. Many can argue that the final defeat of the Soviet army was caused by Stalin's intrigue. Moreover, in the final stage of the war, he was forced to retreat in panic. Three groups of people, that he met at his way then: Ukrainian peasants, Polish communists, and Polish officers were later subject of persecutions. Ukrainian peasants in millions were starving to death during famine organised by Stalin 1930-1934. Polish communists were decimated, and Polish minority deported to Kazakhstan during Stalin's purges 1934-1938. Polish officers were murdered en masse in the Katyn massacre in 1940.
- belongs in some other article, and
- is too ill-defined to say what the article would be.
Not ready for prime time.
When a "see also" is in the middle of text, as with
- (See also: genocide)
it is probably always a bad link. (If you can't mention what you're linking to in a declarative sentence, you can't justify linking them.) In this case, it must be insinuating genocidal intent; find a way to say who says so and their justifications for it. Also, in this case, the article linked makes no mention of these events, and is irrelevant beyond the dictionary definition of "genocide". More connection is needed before linking.
Similarly with
- See also: Russian Civil War
Tell us why this is a better link than Innovations in Russian Revolutionary literature.
--Jerzy(t) 07:30, 2004 Apr 30 (UTC)