Talk:Soviet partisans in Poland

message: The article is reference with only Polish sources and is very one sided. The POV tag should remain until the Soviet perspective is mentioned as well. Fisenko 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I hope you don't mean that we should you Soviet-era sources for that. Having said this, if you can show us neutral sources - English (and note this article uses quite a few of them, not only Polish) or barring that even modern Russian - to prove that it is POVed, then please relist the tag. So far your only accusation against this article is that it uses Polish sources, this is not acceptable to declare tha article POVed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I ask you again: provide any sources that would give contrary evidence or put the sources used in this well referenced article into question.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Care to translate it? Despite what you try to prove here, almost all facts fromt he articles can be verified with this English academic reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Molobo, Fisenko is a well respected editor who contributed much to Wikipedia, aprticularly to the Partisan topics. Explanation is provided and discussion is developing. I can equally say that all sources in the article are not credible. And when I add sourced info on AK's cooperation with Nazis against the Soviet partisans (Piotrowski) the article would be more balanced. In any case, the sources here are unevaluated, one sided and the disagreement is a good faith. It's totally disgusting to attempt to prevail in honest edit conflicts by tryiong to get your opponent blocked. --Irpen 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't take part in this discussion, so treat my comment as a side note. That's exactly what I thought Irpen's intention was when he deleted this particular section from the main article and moved it elsewhere. At first the section was removed to let the main article represent only the Soviet POV and then it was copied here, where it's content could be freely deleted or, at the very least, marginalized. However, before Fisenko or Irpen start a POV dispute about this particular article, they should IMO try to read it as it was written by yours truly: that is a part on Polish perspective added to an entirely Soviet-oriented article. In the effect, we have a POV article there and an article here that was meant to be a part of NPOVing effort of the other one. //Halibutt 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I added the POV tag there specifically because this section was removed from there and all traces of some non-Soviet view on the matter were removed. This was not supposed to be a separate article and no wonder it does not work well as such. It was supposed to be a part of that article - and would perfectly fit there. //Halibutt 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: The issue of AK's collaboration with nazis was brought up here because they were collaborating specifically against the Soviet partisans. The quote Piotrus brings here has no relation to this collaboration. The researcher claims that AK as a whole is largely untainted with collaboration in the Holocaust events in Poland. What does it have to do with its being complicit or not in collaboration against Soviet partisans? --Irpen 01:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the big picture. Collaboration in the Holocaust is part of the argument about collaboration with the Nazis; thus the above quite is relevant if we are talking about Polish partisans alleged collaboration with Nazis against the Soviets.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant quote

message: This article seems very one sided, everything seems to be viewed through the filter of Polish nationalism, anti-Sovietism and Polish victimhood. This topic seems a prime example of one that can easily be distorted by the prism of events that took place before and after. While I can certainly believe a significant section of the civilian population might have been hostile to the Soviet partisans, I find it hard to believe that there was an overwhelming opposition to them. It would seem almost inconceivable that the Soviet partisans could have continued to operate effectively far behind the front line against such a powerful and ruthless opponent as the German army without significant (if not overwhelming) civilian support. Booshank 02:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Soviet partisans for information on many succesfull ops of SP in areas they had much support.  Further, please note that Kresy territories did have sigificant non-Polish population, and I'd expect this is where many of SP got their support from. Lastly, we discussed sources above, the facts in those articles are well-referenced using many English language and online academic sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Booshank comment

message: By the end of 1943, the Soviets could claim a significant victory in their war aganst the ethnic Poles: most large landed estates owned by the Poles had been destroyed by the Soviet partisans.
Please give evidence that there was such an "ethnic war" by the Soviets.--Shakura 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I agree the term 'ethnic' here is not most appopriate (and uncited). Barring refs to the contrary I'd support removal of that word.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Soviet ethnic war" against Poles??? 

message: "Stalin's aim to ensure that an independent Poland would never re-emerge in the postwar period.[3]" - what is the predicate here?
BTW - SATalin's aim wasn't negative as above, but positive - ~more or less Soviet Poland.
Xx236 11:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Should be mentioned.Xx236 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stalin Brigade. --HanzoHattori 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could both created stubs/redirects to those terms I just ilinked?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Naliboki massacre]] 

message: I believe that Soviet partisans in Eastern Poland bettern explains the contains. The article doesn't discuss Soviet activities in contemporary Poland.Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By contemporary you mean, I assume, geographically. It is true that Soviet partisans did not operate in central/western Poland (i.e. territories not occupied by the Soviets in 1939), that said - do we need a longer title? I like to stick to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Interesting, could you find a citation, English or Polish, for that? I was under the impression those would be still Polish (communist, pro-Soviet, Soviet-controlled...) partisans.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  11:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

text: True; this however does not mean they were Soviet partisans - through their autonomy was practically non-existent, it was the same kind of difference that meant People's Republic of Poland was not a Soviet republic.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  12:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  in Eastern Poland 

message: This entire article does not make sense. Poland did not exist as a state after 1939, so Soviet Partisans could not have operated on its territory. In any case, the territory annexed by Soviet Union was also not Poland any more, so they were not operating on Polish territory any way one looks at it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Poland did exist as a state after 1939 (there was Polish government in exile and the Polish Underground State). The fact that Soviets and Nazis occupied only meant that indeed their forces operated on occupied Polish territory. It's as simple as that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet partisans in Poland? 

message: Confirmed for WP:POLAND per milhist review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "book review by a non-expert is not a suitable source; see: Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist)#Citation to Judith Olsak-Glass, Sarmatian Review." -- K.e.coffman (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2023 edit