User talk:A. Kupicki

I noticed you have a strong interest in Polish related topics. I was wondering if perhaps the article PZL-230 Skorpion might fall within them? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. I can look for more WP:RS citations. What else would you like me to do about it? — A. Kupicki (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Citatons would be great. Not sure otherwise, just thought I'd bring it to your attention in case it was interesting - saw some of your DYK work and was inspired. (And the Skorpion has always fascinated me.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they were created and translated first time that would be picked up... So that would be best....♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allen3 ^talk 00:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling you may be interested in my newest DYK nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can review it for you at T:TDYK if you want? Give me a couple of days. Cheers. — A. Kupicki (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you articulate on the third-party tag [3] a little bit? How is YIVO "too close" to the subject? Are there sources which should be included but which are missing? Volunteer Marek  00:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the part which you tagged with the third party source template in text is actually unsourced - it's half translated from Polish Wiki, half based on background knowledge that's strolling through my brain based on some stuff which I've read previously - so if anything a "citation needed" tag is more appropriate rather than a 3rd party tag. Volunteer Marek  00:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about that. I never heard that in 1968 the JHI archives were being threatened with destruction. It sounded like spin to me, that's why I put a tag on it. On the one hand, I'm glad to know that that wasn't sourced, especially considering that both YIVO and YV Pinkas specialize in preserving depositions which might have made that sort of assertion. On the other hand however, I'm surprised you would risk controversy without an Ace up your sleeve. Please clean it up, tags and all. Thanks. — A. Kupicki (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be hyperbole, but I do remember reading something about that before, and Polish Wikipedia was roughly in line. I just wrote the article and was going to look for more info to support it or remove it. Just didn't have time. Volunteer Marek  02:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the pl wiki says Po wydarzeniach z marca 1968 został zdymisjonowany ze stanowiska dyrektora Instytutu, czego powodem była jego skuteczna walka w obronie zbiorów i dorobku przed jego planowaną likwidacją. and like I said I've read other stuff along the same lines before. Honestly I don't know the exact details (is liquidation same as destruction? is it referring to just the archives or the legacy of the institute?) so his role and effort may be being exaggerated. If you can find some sources in that regard it would be very helpful. I'm also going to email some people at the institute and ask for more details since I think online sources may be hard to come by. Volunteer Marek  03:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To help out, "liquidation" implies the organisational destruction of a group, from the Soviet uses of liquidation. You can liquidate a line in debate without liquidating its members (much of the shock of high Stalinism was his equation of liquidation of a line with liquidation of the constituents of the line). Of course given the arbitrary and shifting uses of the judiciary prior to the liquidation of the anti-party bloc, liquidation may imply the destruction of the constituent elements and/or the mere organisational liquidation prior to 1958ish. OTOH the Soviet system of government relied heavily on knowing where the bodies were buried, and they were loathe to destroy documentation if it could be of use. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but even in Polish "likwidacja" might have different connotations than "liquidation" in English. Here it could just mean that they were going to close down the institute and dump the archives in some basement ("liquidate" access to them) or it could mean that they were going to destroy them (note that this is well post 1958). Anyway, while my interest is very much piqued by this and it looks like there's an interesting story in here I'm afraid that I cannot find any secondary sources out there - all I got is what it says on pl wiki. So I think Kupicki's right, that part will have to be removed/trimmed. Volunteer Marek  08:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PL wiki is known for having a lax attitude toward proper sourcing especially about contemporary history. Please do whatever you need to. Just remember, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a pretty hard-core policy around here. Any exceptional claim (like the one you just made) requires high-quality sources. The "no original research" policy (NOR) is also closely related to the Verifiability policy/guideline. Among core requirements is that all claims like that must be attributable to a reliable third-party source. — A. Kupicki (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if I'm unable to find a reliable source to back that part up I will remove it myself. But I think it's plausible so for the next few days I'm going to leave it in (a lot of Wikipedia articles survive five, six, seven + years without a source what so ever) while I try to track down some sources (and see if I get a response from the Institute). So anyway, click the "Random article" button on your browser and start tagging all them unsourced articles you come across (many, many, many). But if you do know of some sources related to Eisenbach please let me know. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you please do the same about the OR claim made in pl wiki? Here's more. – I found nothing of the sort at Virtual Shtetl and JHI homepage. Thanks. — A. Kupicki (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really edit pl wiki that often. I still think there's something to it, and given the circumstances it makes sense. But yes, so far I have been unable to find confirmation in outside sources. Volunteer Marek  00:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your recent edits. Life is not a reliable source for Featured history articles, or for history articles in general. Correspondingly, your quality of citations is well below featured article grade and out of style with the article. You've also changed content over a citation: did you read the citations? Are you now misrepresenting the citations? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please be more specific. There's always room for improvement there. – What exactly did I change over a citation? I'm putting references in as I go, and I will confirm them gradually with more sources or wp:rs replacements if necessary. What citations do you mean exactly? I will try to fix them right away, but please remember, every expansion is a process. — A. Kupicki (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Observe your diff here:

• This, "He was arrested by the Ministry of Public Security and interrogated by both, Romkowski and Fejgin on Soviet orders. Gomułka escaped physical torture only as a former close associate of Stalin.<ref name="LIFE">[http://books.google.ca/books?id=wkEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA172&dq=%22Roman+Romkowski%22&cd=3#v=onepage&q=%22Roman%20Romkowski%22&f=false "Poland's New Chief", LIFE Magazine, 26 November 1956. Pages: 173–182,] [[Google Books]]</ref>" is not an adequate citation for a featured article. LIFE is not a scholarly journal, and you've cited a primary source (note the date of the article).
• This, "Civil war in Poland. Europe since 1945: an encyclopedia, Volume 2, Bernard A. Cook  (in English)" is out of style with the citation guide

• Observe your diff here

• Originally, before your edit, <ref name="PWN_historia"/> only supported Tadeusz Mazowiecki being a member of Solidarity, your edit changes this to an elected member of Solidarity—does PWN_historia actually say this? You need to check every edit where you change cited text against the original source.

• This diff of yours changes extensive volumes of cited text.
• Moreover, while the article's citations are currently appalling for a history article, including the citation of encyclopaedia; this isn't an excuse to increase the number of non-FA grade sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fifelfoo. I really appreciate your help. I also love your style of commenting. I will get to it right away, as soon as I finish moving stuff around and checking the actual content for the logical progression of thought. Thanks in advance. — A. Kupicki (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, as long as you keep policy in mind, feel free to improve this featured article. It also helps to discuss extensive changes on the talk page of an article first. Remember: people generally have put a long time into Featured Articles, and it can help to notify the "sponsor" on the Featured Article's FAC, or the major historical contributors that you're editing :) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Fifelfoo. Just to let you know. The whole article, sort of grew on me. I started small, with adding a link and a supporting line in one paragraph, and began to read what's around it. My recent edits are a result of trying to make sense of it top to bottom. Please let me know of anything else you might notice. — A. Kupicki (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Mazowiecki being elected (by the Sejm), here's a better source [4].

For Gomulka's arrest etc., it sort of depends on which part you want cited. The fact that he was spared torture is pretty well known and established (I can give several sources easily). The fact that he was interrogated by Romkowski and Fejgin is probably in some secondary source (basically, given his high profile there was no way that they would NOT have interrogated him at some point, so lots of sources don't bother mentioning this as it's obvious). The part which is however somewhat controversial is exactly why he was spared torture. Some sources say it's because he was unrepentant and threatened to expose some dirty secrets (particularly the collaboration of the communists with Gestapo during WWII) if they tried to put on a show trial with him. Some sources say that Bierut and others, while they wanted him distanced from power were also keeping him around "just in case". Other sources say that he still had support but he was arrested on orders from Moscow and they were stalling for time. I'm not sure that being a former close associate of Stalin is one of the main reasons usually given (not sure it's in the LIFE article either). There's some info here [5]. According to Ryszard Terlecki's "Miecz i Tarcza Komunizmu" Gomulka was spared torture DESPITE the pressure from Moscow, not because of it. Volunteer Marek  08:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're invaluable as always. Soon, I will have enough work – not just for a day – but for a whole next week, if worse comes to worst. — A. Kupicki (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Would you please look around for links to some more wp:rs material if possible? The article in LIFE magazine from 1956 speaks at length about the arrest and imprisonment of Gomulka.[6] – It is a reasonable source as far as I can tell (published by Time), but Fifelfoo rightfully suggested that more contemporary academic sources are needed. Thanks in advance. — A. Kupicki (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read the LIFE article, but - maybe I'm missing it - where does it say he was spared torture because he was a friend of Stalin? I see the part about Romkowski and Fejgin interrogating him but it looks like the article (Swiatlo) is saying that the reason he was spared, at least the show trial, was because they were afraid of things he might reveal. Volunteer Marek  05:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the whole article again also. Apparently, Swiatlo said a lot of things. Some of what he said is challenged by the source you provided i.e. George H. Hodos (1987), Show trials: Stalinist purges in Eastern Europe, especially about blackmail. Hodos claims that the secret police interrogators could have easily taken away Gomulka's mind with torture, as they did in neighboring countries (or during Great Purge: see

Yezov). Our article doesn't say that Gomulka was "a friend of Stalin", but that he was a "former close associate of Stalin," which is correct. Here's a copy of the paragraph from LIFE about that: ... Moscow recognized Gomulka's value and still hoped he would recant and return to party discipline. -- Finally Stalin himself talked to Gomulka in Moscow. Stalin saw in Gomulka the one man in the Polish Politburo who was an authentic, steely proletarian. Gomulka had given himself a measure of self-criticism several months earlier at a session of the Polish Politburo, but Stalin asked him to go much further. If he did, Stalin said, he could stay in the Politburo. Gomulka answered that if Berman and Minc were to remain in the Politburo he wanted to get out anyway. -- That was the beginning of the end. Stalin quickly picked Edward Ochab...(page 179) I was more concerned with other parts, like the one about the territorial exchange, but I already fixed that. Please keep on looking for other wp:nor stuff as well. — A. Kupicki (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I haven't interacted with you before; I wanted to express my appreciation for your collaborative effort.Faustian (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm looking forward to working with you too. There's always a lot to be done around here before I can get down to working on things of interest to me, such as literature, art, and that sort of stuff. — A. Kupicki (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: By the same token. After I did some neutrality cleanup at Poliszczuk, you reinstated a quote in Ukrainian attributed to Torzecki, printed ten years ago by Svoboda (2001/12). According to www.scribd.com source, the interview was only reprinted there. It was published originally in Nasze Słowo and conducted in Poland by Ewa Pocztar-Szczerba. Nasze Słowo is a Ukrainian community newspaper run in Poland with government funds. We both know that Dr. Ryszard Torzecki is not a Ukrainian, nevertheless his quote in Ukrainian is nothing less than a flaming insult. There's no proof that Poliszczuk was connected to NKVD. The article claims that, according to Svoboda, Poliszczuk was a (word for word): "прокурор НКВД" (NKVD attorney). Wikipedia:Verifiability demands that all claims like that must be attributable to a reliable source. Please do something about that if you care. This is a violation of our own core policy/guidelines. — A. Kupicki (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]