Talk:Polish–Soviet War/Archive 3

message: There is a problem with all general maps (region of Upper Silesia). It state Katowice in 1919 while it should be KATTOWITZ. Katowice and part of Upper Silesia became part of Poland as SILESIAN AUTHONOMY in 1922!!!
There is a problem with the map of August - Wilno was a part of Lithuania after passing it by Soviets in July (12.) this map doesn't include it.
:Yes and no. The treaty of July 12 indeed passed the sovereignty over the area to Lithuania, but in reality it was not until their defeat in the battle of Warsaw that the Soviets indeed started to withdraw from the area and allowed Lithuanian units to enter it. As the map shows front lines rather than political or historical borders, I decided to represent the actual state of affairs and not the one postulated by the treaty. Halibutt 13:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it was not under Lithuanian control at the time. Or rather, to be precise, some parts were and some weren't. The post-war borders are marked for comparison only - and it is clearly stated at the image page. As to the legal control over the area, the Bolsheviks "gave" it to Lithuania on the basis that the Bolshevist Russia was successor to Imperial Russia which was seen by them as the owner of the area. At the same time Poland was "given" the area by the Ober-Ost Germans who received it from Imperial Russia in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. So, both positions were equally strong in terms of international law, with the exception that Imperial Russia had previously ceded the area to Germany and lost all rights to it. And only then did it re-claim the rights to it and ceded it again, this time to Lithuania. If you know a way to replace the entire article on Central Lithuania by a single map then please be so kind as to let me know. Halibutt 18:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Recently Irpen significantly reworded one of the parts of this article. Instead of adding  or  tags all over the text, I decided to paste it here for discussion:
:Original version: Polish politicians found it hard to accept Lithuanians demand for a complete independence and their territorial demands, especially on ceding the city of Wilno, Lithuanian historical capital which had nonetheless a Polish ethnic majority. Polish negotiators made progress in negotiations with the Latvian Provisional Government, and in early 1920 Polish and Latvian forces were conducting some joint operations against the Bolsheviks. The main Polish success lay in signing a military alliance with the Ukrainian People's Republic of Symon Petliura. Petliura had, after his government's defeat by the Bolsheviks, found asylum in Poland and now headed a new Ukrainian Army. The Polish-Ukrainian War ended around July 1919 and from September both Polish and Ukrainians loyal to Petliura fought together.
:Irpen's version: Poland refused to accept the Lithuanians demand for independence and their territorial demands, especially for the city of Wilno, Lithuanian historical capital which had at the time a Polish ethnic majority. Polish negotiators made progress in negotiations with the Latvian Provisional Government, and in early 1920 Polish and Latvian forces were conducting some joint operations against the Bolsheviks. The Poles could claim a success in signing a military alliance with the exiled Ukrainian government of Symon Petliura, who ended up in the Polish exile after the multiple military defeats, from the Bolshevik forces in central Ukraine and from the Polish army who succeeded in gaining control of the largely ethnically Ukrainian territories in Volhynia and Galicia. In exchange for the recognition of Polish territorial gains with the border along the Zbruch river, Petliura was promised the military help in regaining the control of Kiev for his government that was supposed to join the Polish-dominated Międzymorze Federation. However, Ukrainian forces loyal to Petliura that fought in the war in alliance with the Polish army never exceeded two divisions.''
---
# Poland not only did not refuse to accept the Lithuanian demands for a complete independence, but also recognized Lithuania as an independent state. One should distinguish between a territorial dispute and a state conflict. As early as in 1918 the existence of independent Lithuania was recognized by Poland. 
# The city of Wilno did not have the Polish majority "at that time". It used to have a Polish majority both before and after that time; I fail to see why should we use such terms. 
# The Poles could claim a success - well, in fact they achieved a success as the alliance in fact was signed. Again, I don't understand what was wrong with the original wording.
# the suggestion that Petliura was in part defeated by the Poles is factually wrong. Poles fought against the Western Ukrainian Republic, but not against the Hetmanate or the Directoriate (that is the Kiev Ukraine). In fact, one of the reasons why the two Ukraines never fully merged was that Kiev was seeking ties with Poland even before Petliura rose to power. And the Poles respected the rights of Kiev to the lands across Zbruch even before the alliance was signed. All in all, there were no fights between Poland and Petliura.
# whether Międzymorze was to be Polish-dominated or not is highly dubious (as can be seen at Talk:Międzymorze, for instance
# the size of Ukrainian units is also inaccurate. Prior to the Bolshevik invasion of Ukraine, the forces of Ukrainian People's Republic had 12 weak divisions at their disposal (numbered 1 through 12), as well as several independent brigades and regiments. After the reorganization during the Kiev Offensive Petliura had 5 divisions and a cavalry brigade. However, all of the divisions were in fact severely understrength by Polish standards (but not Russian!) and, combined, did not exceed the strength of roughly 2 fresh Polish divisions - or 3 average infantry divisions. However, stating arbitrarily that he had exactly two divisions is misleading. 
Halibutt 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding 4), I think we concluded that Miedzymorze would probably be Poland-dominated in the same sence that today's EU is German and French dominated, not in the sense that the Warsaw Pact was Soviet-dominated. As Miedzymorze was never implemented and our dispute there was never finished, I think we should avoid using it as an example until we now more. As for 5), I'd love to see this information about Peltura's military strenght and different division sizes added to main text - it's quite relevant and important.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: While Irpen's view was discredited here, he decided to move his allegations to Polonophobia article where he started writing on Polish attempts to force Ukraine to become a puppet state and gain its territory. --Molobo 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irpen's edit 

message: Anyone who thinks otherwise is a nutjob commie!
The communists LOST and lost badly!
(Romanyankee78 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was indeed a Polish victory, but far from being a total one. Militarily Poland got all it could hope for and even more. However, politically the peace of Riga was far from being one-sided. In fact both Polish nationalists and Russian commies cooperated during the Riga talks against Piłsudski's vision, which resulted in making his plans for stability and security in Central Europe obsolete. So, militarily it was a striking Polish victory and a disaster for Lenin. However, politically the Polish victory was much more bitter than one might think. Halibutt 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Halibutt, could you, or some other world-renown cartographer, produce the map of the area for January 1919, indicating who controlled what? As this has been an issue before, you may mark differently de jure and de facto boundaries.  I understand that at that time there were Reds, Whites (more than one faction?), Greens, non-Bolshevik Ukrainians (more than one faction?), Bolsheviks, Byelorussians (was there a separate pro-independence force?), Entante, and various Baltic faction. I could imagine that Romanians and Germans could be there too. We will then see the factions whose holdings increased by April 1921 and proclaim them winners, and those that lost ground- losers. Once and for all. This would ease up the question of winners and losers, which causes the constant debate on this page. Any non-believer then could be peacefully re-directed to the sources of your map. If possible, the references may include the names of the treaties (BTW, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not involve Imperial Russia; it was signed by the Bolsheviks and nullified by the terms of German surrender in WWI). I realize that it will take a heroic effort, but you have done similar things before, and you keep on putting quite a bit of effort in the never-ending discussions on this page anyway.--EugeneK 18:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, such passion :) As far as Lenin goes, he may have tried to paint a rosy picture in his public statements, but in his secret report to the IXth Conference of the Bolshevik Party on September 20, 1920, he called the outcome of the war "In a word, a gigantic, unheard-of defeat" (see The Unknown Lenin, ed. Richard Pipes, Yale University Press,  Document 59, p.106). Ahasuerus 02:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Almost, but not a total one. The Poles failed to keep Kyiv. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blonde Knight of Teuton (talk • contribs) 26 August 2006.
Total enough  RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 16:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This was a TOTAL POLISH VICTORY 

message: Hi all. I noticed an anon adding some fancy info here. At first I thought it's a vandalism, but even if it is - there is a grain of truth in it. Indeed the Bolshevik weapons supply was low and indeed there were lots of Polish Americans (as well as some 200 Americans) serving with the Polish Army. However, is the 20,000 figure reliable? Seems way too much... Halibutt 21:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference is needed. There certainly some American volunteers (Kościuszko Squadron comes to mind), but 20,000? The rifle production figures also need a reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans in PBW 

message: I reverted anon contribs (below). Source is needed before they are moved back to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilno - not Polish or Lithuanian? 

message: Which means the USA had a hand in beating the pinko's 
Romanyankee(24.75.194.50 16:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point being? And please, cite your sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  20,000 Americans took part! 

message: The information under the heading “End of the war” is questionable. Apparently, some negotiations were going on as early as March. The talks in Riga started in the middle of September. That is when the Soviet offers were announced. Obviously, they were not inspired by the October advances of the Polish army. Would someone care to re-write the paragraph? --EugeneK 03:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you quote to which March negotiations you refer, and what Soviet offer were annouced there? Some negotiations were going through the entire war, but the Riga negotiations were most definetly inspired by Mircale at Vistula and ensuing Polish victories.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see. You are reffering tho the part: 'After the mid-October... Bolsheviks sued for peace', right? We could indeed use further clarification, as there is no doubht that 1) negoatiations in Riga were going since September 2) fighting did not stopped till mid-October. It is entirely possible that it was only in mid-October that Soviets in Riga sued for peace, and before that the negotiations were not going so well. We could use more references regarding the Peace of Riga - but that discussion may be better continued at that article's talk page (Talk:Peace of Riga).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Great - I was looking for those details on Google Print but couldn't find anything so specific by now, and I am getting sleepy. Could you append the relevant articles with the above info and reference? Tnx.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tnx. Could you add the references too?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, I have mentioned the reference in this talk, and this book is already mentioned and linked to on the page.  If you find it necessary, please insert the link properly, as I am not good at formatting. You have resurrected the phrase that the September talks were inspired by October battles. The sequence of months in traditionally accepted calendar is September – October.  Unless you have evidence that this was not the case in 1921, please do not resurrect the erroneous phrase. BTW, you have mentioned earlier that you do understand my point and encouraged me to make the edit. If you feel that a particular military encounter has to be mentioned, please find an adequate context for it. Thanks.--EugeneK 23:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eugene, I am not suggesting that the Riga negotiations were started after the October advances, but there is no denying the fact that Polish army advanced through September into October, and that this likely had impact on the Soviet negotiators. The phrase is correct, although if you want to make it clear pleae improve it - I honestly don't see what's wrong with it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of the war 

message: With the article to be main paged in a few days, I finally went to the library to fulfiil Irpen's request about checking Davies PSW book. To my considerable suprise I found that University of Pittsburgh Hillam Library has more then two shelves stacked with books related to the PSW, Polish and English (and Russian, but I can't even read their titles :( ). All of them are withing few meters of a Int-comp workstation, and the library is 25 minutes from my place :) Anyway, here is a list of publications that I can easily access (forgive me for the lack of Polish letters):
:English
*Norman Davies, Lloyd George and Poland, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego, 2000, 
*Norman Davies, White Eagle, Red Star, St. Martin Press, 1972, no isbn?
*Thomas C. Fiddick, Russia's Retreat from Poland, 1920, Macmillian Press, 1990, 
*Michael Palij, The Ukrainian-Polish Defesnive Alliance, 1919-1921, University of Toronto, 1995, 
:Polish
*Marian Kukiel, Moja wojaczka na Ukrainie. Wiosna 1920, Wojskowy Instytut Historyczny, 1995, 
*Tomasz Jan Kopanski, 16 (39-a) Eskadra Wywiadowcza 1919-1920', Wojskowy Instytut Historyczny, 1994, \
*Tadeusz Kawalec, Historia IV-ej Dywizji Strzelcow Generala Zeligowskiego w zarysie, Gryf, 1993, 
*Mieczyslaw Pruszynski, Dramat Pilsudskiego: Wojna 1920, Polska Oficyna Wydawnicza BGW, 1995, 
*Grzegorz Lukowski, Walka Rzeczpospolitej o kresy polnocno-wschodnie, 1918-1920. Polityka i dzialania militarne., Wydawnictwo Naukowe Universytetu Adama Mickiewicza, Poznan, 1994, 
*Grzegorz Lukowmski, Rafal E, Stolarski, Walka o Wilno. Z dziejow Samoobrony Litwy i Bialorusi, 1918-1919, Adiutor, 1994, 
*Antoni Czubinski, Walka o granice wschodnie polski w latach 1918-1921, Instytut Slaski w Opolu, Opole, 1993, no isbn?
*Marian Marek Drozdowski (ed.), Miedzynarodowe aspekty wojny polsko-bolszewickiej, 1919-1920. Antologia tekstow historycznych., Instytut Historii PAN, 1996, 
*Grzegorz Golegiewski, Obrona Plocka przed bolszewikami, 18-19 sierpnia 1920 r.', NOVUM, 2004, 
*Janusz Szczepanski, Wojna 1920 na Mazowszu i Podlasiu, Gryf, 1995, 
*Janusz Odziemkowski, Leksykon Wojny Polsko-Rosyjskiej 1919-1920, Rytm, 2004, 
*Stanislaw Alexandrowicz, Zbigniew Karpus, Waldemar Rezmer, Zwyciezcy za drutami. Jency polscy w niewoli (1919-1922), Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, 1995,
*Stanislaw Rozstworowski, Listy z wojny polsko-bolszewickiej, Adiutor, 1995, 
The above list is only of publications that seemed to me directly related to the PSW. I skipped over publications about the Polish-Ukrainian War, aspects of Second Polish Republic and virtually anything that didn't have a title clealry indicating its connection to the PSW. You can browse the library catalogu here. If like me to check any of these publication, let me know!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nice suprise 

message: We have so many nice PD paintings, why are we using this black and white phote with nothing much on it? Which other picture would you like to see used instead?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I prefer to use a real-life picture over a painting. Raul654 02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, using this painting to illustrate the entire article is POV since it shows the victorious Poles kicking the Russian asses. In some cases such images are appropriate, for instance when they briefly and precisley summarize the war and reflect the moment that no doubt took place (like the Red flag over the Reichstag). This one was clearly drawn to inspire the patriotic feelings in Poland. While useful in the school textbooks, I doubt it is equally useful in Wikipedia. --Irpen 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few other paintings besides Warsaw one to chose from.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I cannot find V/Wolodarka in index. Can you give me the approximate location in book where I can check it for you? The picture is quite nice, I think much nicer then the photo.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That you didn't find it, I am not surprized. I doubt that picture reflects anything that actually took place. --Irpen 03:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh? The article has quite a few references, if not inline. Are you suggesting it is a fictional battle?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly agree that we need some way to introduce order into campaignboxes; it is inevitable that as Wiki expands we get more and more articles about small battes. I made a few comments about this at the talk of PSC, in summary, I suggested dividing PSC into several theaters and listing battles under them. If each theater would have its own article, then more minor battle can be listed in the camapignbox specific to the theater, and we can continue this until we reach the last notable house is Stalingrad :) I completly suggest using inline references for all outcomes (and for every single fact, if possible). As for occupation, as I expalaine on your talk page, I could accept the o. word in lead if it is used both for Polish and Soviet occupation of Ukraine. And given that this lead is already quite long I'd prefer to avoid anything that would require explanations like the fact that territories around Lwów had mixed populations, with x% in rural, y% in city, with faction a supporting Poles, faction b being neutral, faction c being pro-Soviet, etc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting that the Soviets were not occupying anything??--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: First, I'd have think that it was you who'd break the 3RR first by introducing your new version for the fourth time. Technicalities aside, I didn't appreciate your comments in edit summaries of either of those articles that if your changes are reverted you are going back to insert your POV in this article. Finally, I believe I explained my reasoning for my opposition to your changes on your talk page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: All should be balanced. I don't insist on Piłsudski's vision there, but if it is, it should be balanced by Lenin's. Although I am still not happy with this, becaus Dmowski is also important, and possibly others, which would bloat the lead even further. As for the Ukraine, you again force the lead to bloat on a topic which is more relevant in the article about Polish-Ukrainian War, but for this war can is minor and sufficiently described in prelude. If you insist on saying that Poles occupied parts of Ukraine, then you are creating a false impression, as this 'occupation' has to be understood in the right context: 1) many of the disputed areas had Polish majority in cities like Lwów 2) while Poles were fighting with Ukrainians, so were the Soviets, and Petlura, who signed an alliance with Poland and agreed on the borders, had much greater legitimacy and independence (stemming from the elections) then the puppet state of Soviet Ukraine 3) Soviets were also occupying parts of Ukraine, and unlike Poles they had no intentions of transfering any parts of it to any government with whatsoever semblance of independence. This all needs to be explained before the sentence 'Poles occupied parts of Ukraine' is sufficiently put in the context. Without that, a POVed impression is created that Poles were the 'bad guys' and Soviets were the 'good guys' (or at least not as bad, as they didn't occupy anything), recreating the myth that it was the Poles, especially with their Kiev Offensive, who started the war (as they occupied some territories and wante to expand their borders and whatever), and Russians (whose intentions or territories I don't see you elaborating upon) did nothing but just defended themselves.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I do know that this article took a huge amount of work to write and I took a modest part on it. Perhaps, Wikipedia isn't ready yet for the articles on such huge and controversial events on the mainpage. Proposals of modifying the editability and exposure of the recent edits (as well as preservation of peer-reviewed versions) are frequantly brought up. Nothing came out yet. But at least we should try to do our best with the current system. My editing to this article is nothing but that and I believe the Piotrus' are as well. It simply may not be enough. --Irpen 04:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I believe I have told you before, the passing through a FAC process is equal to community accepting that an article can apprear on the front page (I believe the Wikipedia article being the sole exception so far). If you feel that the article was not ready you had ample time to use the FAReview or FARC processes, or to edit the article before it appeared on the front page, especially as the information about the date it appeared there was available for weeks. Waiting for the main page day and introducing controversial edits into the article, especially lead (which as sandobx will show took weeks to work out, including a period the article was protected while the lead was constructed in talk, painstakingly, word after a word) is not the best way to deal with the problem.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page pic 

message: Moving back to the pic issue, how about the map I moved to the infobox? A neutral and more informative map of the conflict is much more informative to the reader than the painting whose artistic value as well as neutrality may or may not be debated. --Irpen 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, no. Maps are *THE WORST* images to use on the main page. (In order from best to worst, the list goes something like: real life pictures, paintaings/lithographs, flags, and maps). Raul654 06:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: When shrunk to 100 pixels wide, a map isn't much more than a blob of color, that's why it's basically useless as a main page picture. Raul654 06:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, especially as the previous image was not readded anywhere. For the above reasons I have restored the old scheme of images which has worked through FAC and ever since.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Piotrus, I initially readded the painting to the proper section, see this before making baseless accusations. Lysy reverted me. The propaganda painting you insist on being in the infobox carrys so little info and truth that I render it almost offensive there. But fine. If nationalist work of art is what you prefer in the infoboxes, please be consistent with your preferences. I will replace a map with an image that illustrates the Russo-Polish War (1605-1618). Please do not revert there. --Irpen 16:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the painting is allegoric illustration of the war. Secondly, I'm happy to have it replaced with a map in the infobox, but a meaningful map, illustrating the war, not just a map of Poland. --Lysytalk 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Leaving artistic tastes aside, what other image would you propose? Raul seems to prefer pictures to maps, can we find something that would satisfy everyone?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My mistake. I still don't think that this map is very informative, it doesn't tell the raeder much - it is by far just 'a map of Poland'. A scence from the war would be much better to illustrate the article. I see your point about the Kossak's painting beeing too POVed, and I am open for other suggestions, but I don't think that leaving a map there is a good idea.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox picture 

message: The language in this featured article is chock-a-block with grammar, and other, infelicites. An extensive phrasing edit is really needed. ww 05:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: language problems

message: The text presented on the Wiki page today is biased. It ignores Soviet imperialism, see Soviet declarations of bringing freedom to Western workers. It ignores the existence of the Ukrainian nation (unfortunately too weak to create a state at that time). I don't know if it is Soviet propaganda or rather political corectness and ignorance - two fight so they are probably equally guilty.
If the Poles didn't annex the land East to the Curzon line, at least one million people would have died 1921-1938 during collectivization, Great Terror and famine.
Xx236 06:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and the article, until just some hours ago, did present the whole Pilsudski led adventure as an entirely self-less endeavor aimed to help Ukraine. This is now corrected to what it truly was. Both sides were perpetrators for the Ukrainians at the time of the war. WHat happened later is irrelevant for the war article. Besides, in the first decade, the development of anything Ukrainian blossomed in the Eastern part and was suffocated by the nationalist Dmowski-style policies in the western part. True, things in the east turned for worse in 30s. What does it have to do for this article? --Irpen 06:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Holodomor happened later, to be exact in the 30s. In 20s the policies in Soviet UA was Ukrainization while Poland was carrying the Polonization and shutting down the Orthodox churches. At the same time UAOC in the Soviet Ukraine gained significant following (with the Bolshevik's blessing). Ukrainian culture anything but suffocated in 20s in Soviet Ukraine. Read Ukrainization article. What happened in the 30s was terrible though but is totally irrelevant to the supposed Pilsudski's generousity in helping Ukraine. His course of action was: 1) crush Western Ukraine and make sure it is subjugated within Poland, 2) attempt to install a puppet pro-Polish gov in Kiev, 3) when (2) failed, sell out his "allies" to Bolsheviks in order to keep what he conquered in Western Ukraine, 4) maintain the anti-Ukrainian policies in Western Ukraine until the end of the Second PL republic. This has nothing to do to this article though. Read Polonization and History of Poland and use their talk pages. --Irpen 16:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased beginning 

message: Someone inserted a claim that Petliura was the leader of a party that won elections in 1917. If I understand it correctly, the referenced source actually claims that the largest party in the elected Ukrainian legislature (which was supposed to represent Ukraine at an All-Russian congress) was Ukrainian SR (“socialist revolutionaries”): 71 out of 120 seats; while Ukrainian social democrats had only 2 out of 120 seats. Petliura was a Ukrainian social democrat (Labor or “worker’s” Party), not an SR. So, it is unlikely that his party gained a majority at that stage. Another possible parliament-type body was Central Rada, which was not really elected. It evolved over time and was composed of representatives of various social, political and ethnic groups, including Ukrainians leaving outside of Ukraian. Even for Central Rada, there are no indications of Petliura’s party (if he had been a leader of any party at this time) holding a majority. As many other sources on Petliura indicate, he came to power in a coup after overthrowing a pro-German government.  Could the author of the claim about Petliura’s electoral successes substantiate the claim or remove it altogether? --EugeneK 20:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a related discussion at Talk:Kiev_Offensive#Ukrainian_loyalties. I'd prefer to wait for User:Faustian to comment on this before we make any changes, he seems to be our expert on this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Petliura’s party winning elections?

message: It's abusrd. I don't like to start a revert war. 
Who claimed, he wanted to regain the control on formerly Russian land? In 1920?   Western Ukraine wasn't a part of the Russian Empire, so what was the Red Army doing there?
Hello, is there anyone ????
Xx236 14:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Volhynia was part of the RU empire. As well as Western Belarus. Only Galicia was under the Austrians. --Irpen 16:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Xz, you may want to use  if you think that citation is needed, or  if you think there is an error. As Irpen notes above, this seem to be an overgeneralization, as 'we forgot Galicia'. Any suggestions how this should be reworded?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  who aimed at control of the same territories, which had been part of Imperial Russia 

message: This article is bad. It isn't featured.
Xx236 14:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. //Halibutt 14:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what I agree with Xx236 is that the article indeed needs much improvement. It is still written largely based on the Polish sources which represent only one POV. As I said earlier, I regret I missed its FA nomination. But we can still correct it. I wonder how the article with things like Monachium (which I can guess who wrote in) not corrected could have been promoted. It shows it didn't receive enough attention at the promotion and peer-reviewed stage. I don't doubt the good faith of those who originally wrote it but it was rather one-sided and largely remains so. --Irpen 16:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irpen, I think you meant "the article is still written largely based on English sources, with a significant mix of Russian and Soviet sources introducing Russian and Soviet POV'. Because how other can I count 61 English, 17 Russian and only 4 Polish inline citations?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Irpen, I am afraid that you'll need better proof then few Polonized names to make a case that this article represents Polish POV. Non-inline citations are generally suspect, but this article has no non-inline citations (further reading are not citations).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, did Davies write a monograph on the battles of the Kiev operation? I didn't know, could you post an ISBN? //Halibutt 06:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the sources listed at the bottom of the article. --Irpen 06:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No monograph there, only White Eagle, Red Star, which is fairly general in scope. Far from being a monograph on particular battles and campaigns of the conflict. Nowhere near Operacja Niemeńska 1920 roku or Operacja Warszawska sierpień 1920 by Lech Wyszczelski, not to mention other authors. Or perhaps you meant some other book? //Halibutt 08:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether a battle is significant or not depends on the author. As Wyszczelski focused primarily on the military aspect of the specific campaign, no wonder he lists many more battles and skirmishes that took place during the specific period of time than Davies, whose book is a general overview and is focused primarily on the political and diplomatic aspect of the entire war. If we were to limit the number of battles that appear in the battlebox by our own judgement, what criteria would you suggest? After all we have battles of all sizes listed there. Both Volodarka (roughly 1,5 divisions on both sides) and Zadwórze (merely a company on the Polish side and a division on the Bolshevik); we have the entire battle of Warsaw (entire armies) and Bereza Kartuska (not more than 300 people involved). All are notable to some extent and I wouldn't oppose creation of articles of all notable battles of the conflict, regardless of their size. As long as they are mentioned in sources - they are notable to me. However, you might want to propose some other criteria. Size of the forces involved? Mention in the RKKA's archives or Davies? Mention in monographs of particular stages of the conflict? Be constructive, Irpen. Try to. //Halibutt 08:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Featured"? 

message: "Lenin saw Poland as the bridge that the Red Army would have to cross in order to link up the Russian Revolution with the communist supporters in the German Revolution, and to assist other communist movements in Western Europe."
Either Lenin is biased or this article. Be integral and correct one of them.
Xx236 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to be more specific, I don't understand  what you mean.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Lenin]] 

message: "Политическое руководство второй Речи Посполитой (официальное наименование Польши в 1918-39 годах) сразу же приступило к занятию территорий, населенных этническими поляками." Nothing about "divisions". BTW - Western Silesia wasn't a part of Poland before the divisions.
Xx236 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this text is in Russian. Care to mention where was it taken from and how is it relevant to this talk page or this article? Besides, the text is wrong in that the "Second Polish Republic" was by no means the official name of the country. To the contrary, it was but a handy name coined by the journalists and used by them. Officially the state was (and still is) named "Rzeczpospolita Polska". //Halibutt 15:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian opinion 

message: Xx236 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't get the question. --Irpen 17:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you find a typo, please correct it yourself, instead of wasting space on the discussion page to point it out to everybody. Balcer 12:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you prefer that this "propaganda" stays uncorrected, why bring it up at all? Balcer 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "anti-Jewish pogroms i" 

message: The line "...victories over the white anticommunist forces and their western allies". There was no victory over their "western allies", just the whites. The russians fought very rarely against the small allied forces and usually lost. There was no victory against the allies since they weren't there to fight them at all. Just to watch over territory and reignite the eastern front. Please get that straight as this is not the only article thats stats this. RomanYankee(68.227.211.175 14:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV again 

message: *The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
*Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
*This article may be a bit list-weighty; in other words, some of the lists should be converted to prose (paragraph form). 
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
* article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail. 
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.   
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. 
*You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions (and the javascript checklist; see the last paragraph in the lead) for further ideas. 
*Thanks, Andy t 21:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Take a look at the following fragment:
Piłsudski, who specifically argued that "There can be no independent Poland without an independent Ukraine", really meant Ukraine being split from Russia rather than had any real concern for the fate of the Ukrainians. He did not hesitate to use military force to expand the Polish borders to Galicia and Volhynia, crushing a Ukrainian attempt at self-determination in the disputed territories east of the Western Bug river, which contained a significant Polish minority, mainly in cities like Lwów (Lviv)...
Instead of taking a pool of sources and extracting an NPOV balance, we have arguable ones presenting a one-sided interpretation of events, going insofar as to put words in Pilsudski's mouth, presented as divine truth. Wikipedia isnt about plagiarizing selective authors' quotes to suit certain POVs, but writing a collaborative encyclopedia backed (not copied) by a broad spectrum of sources. There are multitudes of sources interpreting the disputed facts differently, does that mean that I get to purge the current ones and replace them with my own nitpicked quotes proving the contrary? 
Another possible interpretation to illustrate my point is: "Pilsudski foresaw the dangers posed to the Ukrainians by the Soviets, exemplified in such events as the Holodomor" or, God forbid,  something neutral and less charged like "following the Polish-Ukrainian War". This issue needs some straightening out and balancing if the article is to maintain featured status. Reichenbach 16:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good examples. Would you like to take a stab at NPOVing the article?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would short-of-love to, but Im getting off the computer in a jiffy. Tagged for now. Cheers. Reichenbach 17:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to Reichenbach :) //Halibutt 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV problems 

message: "Repercussions of this continue (to a diminishing extent) to affect relations between the two countries."
What about Lithuanian participation in Ponary masscre of ethnic Poles and expulsion of Poles after the war?
Xx236 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithuania 

message: There are several citation requests in main body. If you can help and provide the relevant references, please do so, this is a FAC-level article and we should address such issues as a priority.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation requests 

message: There were Soviet-Ukrainian fights after the armistice, which should be mentioned. 
Xx236 08:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting, feel free to expand on that using references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet-Ukrainian fights after the armistice  

message: We have sources that describe the result as Soviet defeat (, ); that obviously equals Polish victory. Do we have any sources to the contrary? If not, then please stop reverting Polish victory. Of course feel free to expand the footnote which describes why it was not a total victory, but the fact remains that it was the Soviets who were defeated at Warsaw and sued for peace, not the other way around.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources have been discussed in the past that showed that Soviets viewed it a their victory. Please do not lead your opponents into the circled arguments. It was settled months ago even mefore the mainpage day. All of a sudden here comes Halibutt and starts this all over and you make a revert war undoing other's edits en masse, which is unhlepful. Anyway, since this may degenerate in a 2 vs 1 sterile rv war and since some here have been seen acting such that trying to get an upper hand by seeking the blocks of their opponents, I mark the result as disputed and will ask for more eyes. In the meanwhile, I would like to reiterate that it is upsetting to see hour's worth of work and merging and referncing undone by a 5 sevonds revert. --Irpen 05:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: IIRC the very first note used to explain that the result is disputed, and the article used to have just "Result: Peace of Riga" for a long time. Dunno what changed since... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the discussion above, it seems unconclusive. Further, the references in article itself support Polish victory. Unless the references you mention are presented, I see no reason we should prefere an unreferenced inconclusive over referenced Polish victory/Sovet defeat. As for reverting, Irpen, I am afraid that an hour's work of inserting terms like 'naked agression' will be usually reverted (I am pretty nobody reverted any of your reference additions).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result, revisited 

message: Why pushing a POV words like "camouflaging campaign as join effort instead of naked aggression"? I mean I don't care it came from some pro-Soviet source. If this was another offensive in a war, then how you acn use "naked aggression" sentence at all? Not to mention the clear POVness of such formulation Szopen 12:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's written in the ref! What we can do, however, is to put it into quotation marks and point to the source, as to be clear it's author's opinion. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Few references are NPOV. Thus in cases they are clearly POVed we should avoid using their terminology.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yet it is referred to 5 times in the article, and now you claim it is POV... I don't get it... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 13:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You misunderstand. We cannot avoid using POVed references, since most publication has some POV (and NPOV policy is fairly unique to Wikipedia). Usage of references with very strong POV is not recommended, but this is not the case here; the book seems like an average acceptable English academic source. However, we should avoid phrases (including quotations), especially 'poetic', like 'naked agression', which show clear POV.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Naked aggression" 

message: At 101kb, this article is getting too long. Please think what can be moved to the subarticles (see ), please also note that they have not been updated since the article was FAed, and may contain some POVed/unreferenced parts. I'd also like to split off the controversies section, it was added after the FA and we can shave few kbs of the articles by linking it from a single sentence about controversies related to this war.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would first spin off the material on the details of P-P alliance to the Treaty of Warsaw (1920). Second, I would spin off the Ukrainian Galician Army. Those are topics on their own and those need articles anyway. I will try to start those myself unless someone will jump in first. As for the controversies, I would not rush to splitting them as much as the two topics above because they would appear a more of an artificial split.  --Irpen 00:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. I am somewhat against splitting material to the subarticles mentioned above as they receive next to no attention from editors (including ourselves), thus moving any info into them is more akin to brushing stuff under carpet... :) For the controversies, the article was fine without them, and I think they are as off topic as the Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) - worth mentioning somewhere, but we don't need such a section to discuss them here. Perhaps a short summarized section, if anybody really wants to keep this here...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the controversies section is indeed not the best approach but splitting it to a spearate article hiding them under the rug is even worse. What needs done with it is simply integrating what is really important in this section to the appropriate chapters of the war within the text. --Irpen 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, articles with 'controversy' in title are not good style, but I think that most of those controversies are redundant - they don't need to be mentioned in this article. Prisoner camp controversies should be mentioned in the prisoner camp articles, Kiev's bridges in Kiev Operation or History of Kiev, accusations against particular commanders in the commanders articles - this way I think we can split off most controversies into more relevant articles. As they seem to be attached to both sides more or less equally, getting rid of them should not unbalance the article's NPOV, I hope.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not about balance. It's about information and its relevance. Would knowing of the sides' behavior help the reader to understand the subject of the article better? Of course it would. "Controversies" section looks odd. But the essential info properly integrated in the article's flow belongs there. The article on the Treaty of Warsaw or UGA are natural. "Controversies of the PSW" would look artificial. I expect someone to bring the parallel with Soviet partisans in Poland. That question was answered and the differences were explained. --Irpen 04:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the only difference that the case of Soviet partisans in Poland was a tad unfavourable to the Soviets so it had to go away from the main article, while here the description would be equally unfavourable to both sides so it should stay? //Halibutt 09:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. I answered that question earlier. Your Poland sections was redundant as the geographic area of operation was covered by  other sections. --Irpen 00:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That was a poor step, IMO (splitting the controversies). Whatever relevant and encyclopedic about the side's atrocities in the war belongs to the article about the war. Whatever's irrelevant or unencyclopedic belongs nowhere. The separate article could have been written if someone would be willing to present a detailed analysis of the atrocities. That hasn't happen and the section looks like an artificial spin. --Irpen 00:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And right after what I said above Piotrus went ahead and spun off the section despite my objections and not even bothering to respond. Nice! --Irpen 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your above comment was posted 5h after I spun off the article. The fact is it was getting too big, and that was the section that appeared after FAC process, containing information relativly unimportant to the war (mentioned in few if more than one publications). It is really easy to see it is a good candidate to be spun off.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: From your post above I didn't realize how strongly you felt about this section. Nonetheless I believe my edit preserved all important facts and spun off only excesive trivia, not that important to the article. Which information do you think are crucial enough that they should be brought back?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: As you can see, over the past weeks I have been adding more inline cits to the article, but there are still many unreferenced facts. Any help with referencing facts (and numbers!) would be greatly appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure quite a few of the numbers and facts are in Davies publications, which I don't have at home. If anybody could look through them saving me a trip to the library, it would be nice.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find refs in WERS for the numbers for Op Kiev (Davies notes there is little data, quotes two sources - one giving Soviets 80,000; other giving Poles 50,000 and Soviets 10,000). Can interested editors fill those citation requests, as well as others about Ukrainian army strenghts?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More inline refs requested 

message: I have removed the following senctence. "however as that operation was codenamed 'Target Vistula' it caused much concern among the Poles."Davies, Norman, White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919–20, Pimlico, 2003, . (First edition: New York, St. Martin's Press, inc., 1972.) Page 26-27
The note in Russian westward offensive of 1918-1919 claims that this name does not exist in the historiography of the period. Also the sentence is trivial and of small notability. Joelito (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is used in WERS, which is the most comprehensive work on that subject. While it perhaps is not important to that general article, 'Target Vistula' as well as other rethoric of the Bolsheviks (about taking the revolution west through Poland) were taken by much of the contemporary Poles as a sign that they intend to invade Poland. Ironically, in 1919 those were empty slogans, and only in 1920 they became the reality - which likely they would not had to if the Bolsheviks used less poetic language :> -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence removed 

message: I commented out text that had citation requests for some weeks now and that nobody referenced (and I looked for that data).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commented out uncited text

message: Hi. I am currently working at the german version of this article (Polnisch-Sowjetischer Krieg). First me and another user started to de-POV a version that was unbearably stuffed with Soviet propganda formulas. (we used the enwiki-Article). During that I got interested in the topic did some additional work. The article is currently running to be featured article in dewiki. My major problem now is a lack of literature. I have used Evan, Mawdsley : The Russian Civil War(for military issues), Davies, Norman : White Eagle - Red Star (for political issues) and I also searched the Blackbook of Communism. The thing is Davies describes war-crimes and civilian sufferings quite briefly. The other authors miss these issues completely. Could somebody give me the title of a book, which has more information about war-crimes and civilian casualies in the Polish-Soviet War ?? Greetings and Best Wishes Nasiruddin Discussion Nov 16th 19:09 2006
:Welcome to en wiki (consider regisering here as well so your edits show as registerd, not anon, in history). We are adding more refs to the article (see also subarticle on controversies of the Polish-Soviet War), but it's not one of the most popular subjects out there. Still, this may come handy. On another note, could you elaborate on the Soviet POV in the article - do you mean this version, or some old variant? PS. If you stumble upon any useful facts or sources, do share them with us!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you got me wrong ;-) The German version was written like a history book from the German Democratic Republic. We at first used the English article to clean this unbearable piece of crap in the German WP. I have no complaint concerning the English article. It was very useful for us, because it gave us a table of contens, which we only had to fill with some "flesh" from the literature. So thanks a lot for your excellent work here. Also thanks for the bibliography. I will also take a look at the refs. Greetings and Best Wishes Nasiruddin 23:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature needed

message: This war shows that the soviets were never really that much of a war machine that was to be propped up. The russains never could fight on the offensive. They could fight on the defensive. YankeeRoman(70.187.232.85 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some War Machine!