Talk:Battle of Wilno (1939)

message: This item seems to fall within the gray area between "skirmish" and "battle". The casualty count in the infobox does not seem to support the term "major battle" in the lead, particularly in the context of World War II.  Novickas 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, although 'battle' is the most common term used for such events on Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? --Irpen 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: An event of this magnitude is not likely to be found in much literature with this grandiose title,  either as "Battle of Vilnius" or "Battle of Wilno". Major loss of territory yes, major battle doubtful. But DYK stated policy at this time is no QA. Novickas 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly. During the territorial takeover not every settlement is taken through a battle. Some are just taken. I can imagine that an article can be written for any type of takeover but the article can only be called "Battle" if there actually was one. --Irpen 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not to be called battle, please show referenced citations for what it should be called. I am perfectly willing to follow usage prelevant in the literature - but what is it? Takeover? Skirmish? Clash? The Polish wiki article, based on Polish publications (see references) uses the term battle ('bitwa'), although indeed the article is titled 'Defence of Wilno (1939)'. If there is consensus that 'battle' is too grandiose for this event, then I believe 'defence' would be appopriate.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show a referenced English citation where it is called a Battle. Wikipedia can afford to create articles about things or phenomena or their narrow aspects for which established names do not exist. Descriptive names are used for such articles and here the best descriptive word is takeover (see above). This article is not about "defence" only and, actually, there was not much of the defence either. --Irpen 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What's wrong with this picture? 10 infantry battalions (6,500 men), 18-22 guns (including AA guns), ~40 MGs on the Polish side, 2 cavalry divisions, 3 armoured brigades on the Soviet side, and you don't want to call it a battle? Please be reasonable. The casualties on the Soviet side might have been doctored which is the case with all military propaganda statements to the public, but be it what it is, how about 5 Red Army BT tanks and 1 BA-10 AFV destroyed and confirmed. 5 BT tanks destroyed in a skirmish? Shame on you. --Poeticbent  talk  04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please stick to established academic definitions, rather then personal experience. And I agree that this usage of name is wrong.M.K. 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Poeticbent, You can rant all you want but the point is that not a single known source has been brought that would call this whatever "a battle". --Irpen 05:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Battle of Fallugia is sometimes called the Siege of Fallugia, if this is of any help. And please try to stay out of verbalisms, Irpen. --Poeticbent  talk  17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you call "a verbalism" was specifically referring to your using the words "Shame on you". Just cut it and no one will refer to your entries as rant. As for Fallugia, it is referred to both as a battle and a siege. Vilnius event, however, is never called a battle in any source that I have seen. --Irpen 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I dug out two refs as requested by Irpen (see below; need more?) //Halibutt 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear from those refs what event they discuss. --Irpen 18:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is clear from the refs. It might be unclear from the links, but the refs are pretty specific. //Halibutt 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description issues

message: Please list proposed new names below, as well as references supporting it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Poeticbent  talk  22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll for a new name

message: Why I am not suprised we have another case of 'Irpen vs the rest'... :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, taunting and baiting me all the time, like you do, will not help you in any way in whatever you are trying to achieve. --Irpen 00:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I restored the title dispute because at least two users disagree with the title, M.K. and myself while three users agree with it. It is not even a supermajority saying nothing about the consensus. --Irpen 03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have proposed a new title and failed to find any support for it including User:M.K who said nothing about disagreeing with the present title in his Edit summary and didn't sign your proposal. You're relying on smoke and mirrors. --Poeticbent  talk  03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I casted my vote and it stands, like it or not. True "smoke" is to trust tatters of the book pages, when deciding name of encyclopedic article. M.K. 10:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My title is descriptive and neutral which is the option for the event for which no well-established English name exists. --Irpen 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You are being irrational. It does not matter how much you believe in whatever monstrosity you might have concocted. What matters is that nobody wants it. --Poeticbent  talk  03:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you say, we current name is worse since it is not a common name for the event and for a good reason. "Battle" is to a grandiose word to describe this event. Also, the Polish name for the city seems not justified either as the historic literature about the city of this time, uses the modern name at least as much as the obsolete one. --Irpen 03:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: English language proficiency of M.K. speaks volumes about his ability to provide expert advise in linguistics which incidentally brings the subject back to recent news about American universities rejecting the use of Wikipedia as a viable research source. Please read CBC article about why "history students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia." --Poeticbent  talk  16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Poeticbent, please revise your tone and learn to behave respectfully towards your opponents. I see this kind of attitude from you is persisting for a while. --Irpen 17:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be advised that it was User:M.K who in his comment (above) questioned first my ability to draw conclusions from accumulated data. Quote: “I just amazed how some contributors (meaning Poeticbent) not seeing dates or better description of this ref , labeling it as convincing reference". The reference is convincing enough. The subsequent comment by User:M.K was not only unnecessary, but also out of place in a vote. --Poeticbent  talk  19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If quoting - quote right. M.K. 10:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As for Poeticbent's chiding of some contributor's English skills, good, we can help our friends and Rodacy with our own linguistic "superiority". This is particularly necessary when the "electronic translators" are messing up. Regardless, I have always been impressed with the linguistic skills of these contributors and want to go on record of praising them, and in the past I too sinned and did some mocking of these skills. I do regret it. Dr. Dan 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this relevant to someone who's contributed largely in few featured articles? And as a former history student I'm glad that Wikipedia is banned for usage for history students, because until Wikipedia will allow to use Google books to search support for somemeone's personal opinion per this searchengine, WP will be nothing less than a showcase of POV pushing. Only reading books someone can grasp the process thaht is history, not only facts (i.e. statistics).--Lokyz 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Lokyz. Dr. Dan 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Dr., please restore my original statement, because I might be able to thank you for correcting my gramatical errors, but somehow you missed my point. I do not know you and I hope you had some good intentions, therefore I do not want any further actions aginst you, but please consider asking me at my talk page before making such edits. Thank you in advance.--Lokyz 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with apologies. Dr. Dan 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: Please be advised that the preceding paragraph attributed to User:Lokyz was moved from its original location and edited for content by User:Dr. Dan at a later date. The rewritten paragraph (with newly added name), placed in a different section on this page by User:Dr.Dan might not reflect the spirit of the original text nor the gist of an earlier discussion. --Poeticbent  talk  15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note #2: Please be advised that User:Poeticbent probably meant "gist" rather than "jest" in his above note. I didn't change it, less my impression of what he meant might not reflect the spirit of the original text. --- Was changed to gist from jest  by Poeticbent. Dr. Dan 15:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Our discussion concerning the title of the article has gone through such deep transformation that most of what I said originally has lost its meaning. Paragraphs have been moved and rephrased post-factum. Words spoken in the heat of the moment were separated by statements made a lot later with unfair advantage. I’m striking out what no longer follows my train of thought.--Poeticbent  talk  05:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As to the size of this battle supposedly not being suitable to call it a battle at all, please take note that - for instance - most battles of the American Revolutionary War were shorter than a few hours and seldom did any of the sides suffer more casualties than 100. If so, then either we should rename those battles as well, or leave all such articles alone. //Halibutt 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Failed due to insufficient citations. C-class in all other aspects. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review