Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:57,

UTC
).

Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

I just realized that this A-class article is quite up to our FA-class standards. So, without further due - please take a look and comment. Partial self-nom.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. All interested editors should find

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_13#Image:German_Soviet.jpg discussion interesting: Unnecessary unfree image showing Soviet and German officers meeting, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text... Feel free to comment there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Prima facie, Piotrus, I have a few comments and suggestions (which, you will note, I do not use as a means to validate an "oppose" vote). One thing I noticed is that the lead section is immense, and gets lost in the details without clarifying, in a clear succession, the essentials (who, what, where). I have made small edits to clarify some of that, but didn't want to risk harming the flow. You can address this yourself by simply condensing the paragraph about the Molotov Pact to a sentence or two (what it was and what it meant for the invasion; perhaps + Poland argued not to have existed any longer), and expanding on it in the "Prelude" section. There also appears to be some overlinking going on, and it seems that terms used tend not to be linked the first time they appear in the text, but in some unusual manner (the second, third, fourth times...), which gives the impression that the text is uncopyedited. The pictures could do with some rearrangement (I have to say it matters less that a pic and its corresponding text do not fall next to each other in the text, than that they cram the text from each side and turn it into a narrow column).
Overall: congrats for what looks to be like a well-referenced and valuable article. Dahn 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added: also, I don't think that giving links to pages found on the google book search is appropriate or desirable. Dahn 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will have a go at copyediting the lead tonight. But I must say that I don't agree that it is immemse, because a good lead tends to have three or four paragraphs and act as a summary of the article, which this does. All the same, I think some details of the pact and of the later history of Belarus and Ukraine can be removed without too much loss. I've carried these edits out.qp10qp 11:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will let Qp10gp, a native speaker, take care of copyeditng. As for the lead, I think that the size is ok and fits
WP:LEAD, but if you or others can cut something out, go right ahead. Also, feel free to rearrange the pics if you think some are unnecessary or are in the wrong section, they look fine on my screen. PS. As for Google Print links, I find them very useful - could you elaborate on your criticism of them?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Some issues I raised still stand: the format is messy (for example, "Poland" is not linked in the lead section, but it is repeatedly linked just lines apart in the body of text), and what about the use of google books links? I would rearrange the pictures (I notice that one is so crammed that, in my settings, it hides part of the text), but that is not an objection (neither are my other comments). Dahn 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you could give more examples like with Poland, it would be appreciated, but mind that the article is constantly being tweaked. And what about the google book links?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly minor stuff, that could easily be corrected - for example, there is at least one instance where "Ukrainians and Belarusians", linked thusly, follows a sentence where both words are present and unliked; at the moment, one of the photo captions is not in correct English; portions of the text are a bit repetitive. I'm aware of it eing constantly tweaked - which is why I commented instead of copyediting (the risk for an edit conflict was just too high); this may be a problem in itself, since the article is supposed to be stable at the moment it passes FA.
About google books: I remember their direct quotation being discussed in another article, but I reviewed the discussion and it seems that people agree links can be used (as long as they do not replace the citation). So I was wrong on that one. Personally, I would recommend not using as sources those that one has not reviewed completely or significantly (solely relying on what the search will provide), but that is another matter altogether, and does not at all invalidate your fine efforts for sourcing.
I should add: from a political point of view, as far as I can tell, the article is very close to perfection if not already there; objections against it on such grounds are trivial and probably spiteful. However, I still think the text needs significant copyedits. Dahn 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Both Image:German Soviet.jpg and Image:Davidlowrendezvous.png are fair use tagged images lacking fair use rationales for use in this article. Further, since neither image is discussed inline in the article, the justification rationale would seem to be flimsy, as there's nothing for the images to contribute to within the text of the article. The article works fine without the images. --Durin 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note: isn't Image:German Soviet.jpg PD in Germany at least? I honestly don't know. Dahn 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added rationales.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Image:Wrzesien.gif should be in english. I think the prelude section could warm the reader up a little with some sort of intro sentence. Would History of Poland be a good "main article" link for the prelude section? I don't quite like the sectioning. I personally wasn't interested in the Prelude, however the current structure does not allow me to read only what happened during the actual invasion. The actual invasion part is in the prelude and then the allied reactions come before the main part describing the invasion. Overall the sections don't stand on their own.-Ravedave 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice if somebody could translate it, although as a map its not really in need of that much translation. I am not sure what would be a good main article,
      Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact sounds like the best idea, I think. As for the sections, I am afraid I don't understand what you mean: per Qp10gp, the invasion is described in the a section of its own, prelude ends with the sentence about start of the invasion...?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The invasion is only mentioned in the last sentence of the "Prelude" section: "On 17 September 1939, the Red Army crossed the border into Poland." That the article then moves to the allied reaction is an attempt to represent the significance of what had happened: the moment the Soviets crossed the Rubicon, as it were, reactions from all around Europe meant that the die was cast and the World War was underway. To treat these events in this order is good narrative form, in my opinion: and history books often folow this order too. But the other thing to say is that maybe the title of this article raises false expectations in the reader, because really this was a very small military encounter, over and done with in a short time and involving relatively little fighting. "The Soviet Invasion of Poland" is therefore not so much an article about a military campaign but one about a whole set of political and diplomatic complexities which it both resulted from and set in motion. Personally I find these complexities fascinating, and I feel that the article sets them out with hard-won cogency; but I can understand the view that the build up, diplomatic repercussions, and consequences of the invasion fill the bulk of the article rather than the fighting itself, such as it was.qp10qp 12:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed "Allied reaction" after the battle details now; and this may be helpful to those who wish to get to the battle details sooner. I've made one or two little adjustments to smoothe this rearrangement.qp10qp 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support another well done article from
    WP:MILHIST.Sumoeagle179 10:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
In reply to Grafikm: Piotrus has almagamated what you called stubby sections with "Aftermath", and I have added some material to the allied-reaction information, in case you felt that it was not sufficient. But to explain my approach, the information was carefully written to be an encyclopedic summary of the allied reaction; it can be extended considerably, of course, if you wish; but for me it is a virtue if an encyclopedia article can encapsulate a complex matter in clear brief, well-referenced prose, which was the intention on the matter of the allied reaction.
Concerning bullet point lists, I have deleted the battles because they are linked in the text, changed the heading to "See also", and cut the "Further reading" section, since there are now so many books in the notes and references for the reader to turn to for further information.
The figures, dashes, etc. are really difficult to express in clear English, but I'll have a go. I don't believe there are many copy-edit issues of that type in the article, though. It is largely written in lucid, fluent prose, I believe.
Numerous POV issues were raised on the talk page and were, as far as I can judge, never corrected. By contrast, some other important issues - like ua/be ethnical reunification, are only skirted.
I rather strongly disagree with this, Grafikm. I spent very many hours of my life (I have 158 edits to this article) picking off the POV material phrase by phrase and re-referencing to sources written in English, mostly by writers with no Polish bias. In the process, I added material about the Belarus and Ukrainian reunification. Look again, and you will see that the matter is specifically dealt with in two paragraphs and a block quotation in the "Aftermath section". In my opinion, to add any more would unbalance the article, since however one may be opposed to the Polish point of view, it would become uncomfortable if the article began to emphasize Belarusian and Ukrainian liberation and reunification issues ahead of the Polish ones, which included the fighting of the actual war and the mass murder and deportation of vast numbers of Polish people. My edits were careful, however, to make clear the Soviet position that concern for and repatriation of Belarusians and Ukrainians was one of their chief aims, and to include the lower estimates for murders and deportations provided from Russian sources. If I had edited the article from a Polish point of view, I would not have done that nor provided the Soviet POV and Ukrainian and Belarusian material which balances the article.
Finally, I would say that my intention in addressing the POV issues raised on the talk page was not to satisfy either a Polish or a Soviet point of view but to give weight to issues in the article in the same proportion that weight is given to them in the history books about this military campaign. When you say that there is still much more to do, I would ask what? I have read a good deal of material about this campaign, and I believe this article summarises it well. However, if you can give some suggestions as to what might be added I will certainly do so. I've asked the same of other critics of the page, and where they have made suggestions, I have acted on them; but too often, I have not been given anything to go on. Any objection here needs to be specific and actionable.qp10qp 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a brief history of the region in the article once, and I could put something like that in again, if you feel the article concentrates too much on the actual campaign. Most of the things you mention do not seem to me about the invasion: what happened was that a Soviet army invaded Poland (you may call it a liberation, and that point of view is represented in the article: but I must tell you that many history books call it an invasion and so Wikipedia policy is followed on that score) and as a result three things happened: many Poles were killed in battle or prisons or deported; most western Belarusians and Ukrainians were incorporated into new soviet rpublics, and World War two was truly set in motion. All these things are covered in the article, and it is made clear that the Soviets and Ukrainians and Belarusians regarded the campaign as a liberation; there are also cartoons and photos to that effect.
You are arguing for an expansion of the article into issues of the Polish occupations of parts of Belarus and Ukraine. These can be mentioned in a little pre-history, and I will look at doing that, but any more will unbalance the article, which is about this campaign. The article is not written from an exclusively Polish point of view: did you not notice that a large number of non-Polish sources are used? And that Soviet POV is stated rather than doubted. The article's position is set out in the lead: "The Soviet military operation, which the Politburo called "the liberation campaign", led to the incorporation of western Ukrainians and western Belarusians into the new expanded Soviet Ukrainian and Byelorussian republics". I can assure you that Polish bias could not have produced that sentence.qp10qp 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" it is made clear that the Soviets and Ukrainians and Belarusians regarded the campaign as a liberation". Actually, this is incorrect :> The article notes that it was Soviet propaganda which attempted to portray it as such (albeit I don't think this is stressed strongly enough; at the very least the sentence you quote above ("which the Politburo called "the liberation campaign"") should be copied into the article, as currently it violates the principle that lead should summarize the article, but should not introduce information not repeated in the article (cursory search for Politbiuro shows it is mentione donly in lead...)), and a paragraph in the aftermath notes that in fact Ukrainian and Belarusian support was mixed at best.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no correct or incorrect when it comes to things like this, in my opinion. The way to approach it is in neutral language, rather than with qualifications such as "but this was propaganda", etc. The readers then see what happened for themselves and make their own judgement whether this was a liberation or not; any nudging would introduce POV, and we shouldn't underestimate the interpretive powers of the readers. As for whether the support was "mixed at best", that may apply more to what happened later: when the Poles were first defeated, it appears that the Belarusians and Ukrainians were pleased. The article shows that but also mentions some of the later problems they faced. I think that gets the balance right, without rewriting what happened at the time according to what happened later.qp10qp 12:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vlad Fedorov. Please, do not be silly. The photo you have linked was taken in Mozyr (as the description says), and dear sir, Mozyr was not part of Poland in the interbellum.
Dear Tymek, no that photo are people hanged by Poles in Mozyr during occupation of Belarus in 1919-1921 by Poland and this photo demonstrates how Poles distort the history by claiming that Belarusian lands are part of Poland. Vlad fedorov 03:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Belarusian partisan movement in the interbellum - never heard of it. I know about general Bulak-Balachowicz (hope got the name right), but never heard about Belarussian guerilla in Poland. Never heard of executions of Belarussians in the interbellum either. Why do you say the territory was illegally occupied by Poland? Ever heard of Traty of Riga? Bereza Kartuska was not for Belarussians only, but mostly for Polish political prisoners and it was not a concentration camp for God's sake. Surely, Siberian camps were much more convenient for Belarussian patriots I pressume. Tymek 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz. Indeed, he represented the pro-Polish Belarusian faction allied with Poland during Polish-Soviet war, IIRC his forces numbered about 5,000. I don't think Soviet Union had any pro-independent Belarus forces in its ranks... but this is a bit OT, since we are discussing events that took place almost 20 years later.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vlad, please be more civil and assume more good faith - your claims that I assessed this article as 'A' class myself is obviously false (it was assessed by WP:MILHIST team), and your speculation about how I'd deny new editors access to the article is quite offensive and obviously false to anybody who checks its talk page.
As for your (unsourced...) POV content comments: 1) as the (sourced) article makes clear, only some, not all, Belarusians supported the Soviets 2) I agree it would indeed by worthwile to mention poor relations between minorities and Polish government in the article. Perhaps some relevant fragments can be moved from
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists on Belarusian side, I certainly never heard anything about a 'resistance movement' - OUN was at best what we today would call a 'terrorist/extremist pro-indepence faction' receiving support only from a small minority, and again, any Belarusian equivelent would be even less fitting for 'resistance organization'. I checked Davies, who in his God's Playground has a paragraph on Belarusian minority: he mentions increasing repressions, but no executions, nor any armed resistance. He does note, however, that Belarusian minority had relatively small 'political awarness', and recommends further reading of Nicholas P. Vakar Belarussia: The Making of a Nation, unfortunatly I don't have access to that publication ATM but if you could recommend any English or Polish readings on Belarusian minority in interwar Poland, I'd be happy to take a look at it. PS. No Soviet sources, please.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that the article now mentions growing tensions and conflicts between Polish government and minorities and its impact on minorities attitude during the Soviet invasion. If sources are provided for any other content (POV) related issues, I'll be happy to incorporate them into the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that the article has sufficient coverage of Belarusian, Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Russian POV's. Again, everything is covered from the POlish POV exclusively.
      • Piotrus argument is like if it is not Polish POV, than it is Soviet absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. Your problem Piotrus is not a few strokes mentioning other POVs exist.
      • For example even the name of the article doesn't fit other POV's. other than Polish. The name of the article is given absolutely from Polish POV. You try to make it everything clear, but it is not.
      • Why you haven' written that Polish goverment before this "invasion" was cooperating with Soviet Union by exchaning political prisoners, and namely Polish government extradited Belarusian national democrats to Soviets which were executed subsequently. Poland was cooperating with Soviets in the matter of Belarusian national movement extermination.
      • Another issue is cooperation of Poland with Germany and namely - signing of Hitler Pilsudki Pact in Warsaw in 19371934 during the visit of Goebbels in Warsaw. You was very quick to mention Mlotov-Ribbentrop act by considerable amount of text, but in "good faith" of course failed to describe in full details and comment Hitler-Pilsudski Pact? Why this important moment - is not covered by your article pretenting to be A-rated? Vlad fedorov 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite your claims to the contrary, non-Polish POV is covered extensively, the article relies mostly on Western (not Polish) sources, as well as on the work of historians such as Ukrainian
Belorussian minority in Poland with that information. And since Józef Piłsudski died in 1935, I very much doubt he would sign any pact with Hitler in 1937. Again, you are welcomed to present a single source to back up your statements...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Mr. Fedorov probably meant the non-aggression pact of 1934, whose main purpose was to normalize border relations--which had been on extremely poor terms pretty much since the end of World War I. I hardly see how this qualifies as Nazi-Polish "cooperation." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a part of the non-aggression treaty too. You also hardly see how the occupation by Poland of Czech territory during the division of Czechoslovakia occupation by Germany fits into the image of Poland as an Allies memeber, right? Vlad fedorov 06:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact of 1934 is in the better timeframe, indeed. But it also reminds me of another error in Vlad's argument: Piłsudski, far from being a Hitler ally, actually suggested several times to his Western Allies that Germany needs to be stopped, if war by necessary, and the policy of appeasement is a grave mistake. He was, unfortunately, ignored - and we all know who was right... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Poland occupied Czech region during Germany's partition of Czechoslovakia. So it wasn't innocent, indeed. Poland also occupied Western Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. It is written in every history textbook in Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania. Vlad fedorov 06:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belarus and the Ukraine were split between Poland and Russia in the Riga Peace Treaty (1921).
     The Ukrainians, for example, would have preferred 100% to Poland (versus any to Russia), so it's hardly accurate to portray circumstances as Poland subjugating western Ukraine (implying the Ukraine preferred union with Russia). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Extremely one-sided article, beggining from the POV title to the actual coverage of events. --
    Kuban Cossack 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
In what way? Please give me something to work on.qp10qp 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Qp10gp, please be more specific. If you look at the top of the page, you'll note that Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. . -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I know it's useless to vote in the face of a crowd of traditional Piotrus-supporters, but I would like to repeat once again that {{POV-title}} is mandatory for this article. Either we term this campaign, the
    Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618)
    as "invasions" or we avoid loaded language in the titles of all three articles. It is absolutely inacceptable to push one's POV by hook or by crook. The two instances of pure Polish aggression against Russia (or Muscovy, as Piotrus prefers to put it) are misrepresented in Wikipedia as border conflicts, while the act of reunification of Eastern Ukraine with Western Ukraine, of Eastern Belarus with Western Belarus is deemed an "invasion".
  • I know the term is supposed to be referenced, but so were the titles of each Polish invasion of Russia, which did not prevent Piotrus and his party from engineering the retention of their present titles. Put briefly, each Russian-Polish conflict instigated by Poland is cast in Wikipedia as a "war" or "uprising", each conflict instigated by Russia/USSR is trumpeted as an "invasion". The same bias runs throughout the article: where can we learn about Poland's overtures with Hitler? about the efforts of Polish diplomacy to prevent the alliance of Great Britain, France, and Soviet Union against Germany? I see the relevant data is carefully suppressed in order to represent Poland as an eternal selfless victim, as is normally done in the articles authored by Piotrus. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla, most of your comments do not seem to be about this article, and I would very much welcome any material you can provide or guide me to with regard to this particular article. As it stands, I believe its language is painstakingly neutral. Please do not assume that I have blindly used words like "invasion" and "massacre" without looking into them carefully. The word "invasion" is used by most of the western sources I have looked at; but I have taken into account the alternative view of the campaign by mentioning it in the article several times: the reader is left in no doubt that the Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians did not regard the campaign as an invasion. What more can I do in following Wikipedia policy? I researched the word "massacre" as it applies to Katyn and found that to be an established word used to describe it in history books, which is why I believe its use in the article is in keeping with policy. This is not "massacre-talk" because other deaths and murders are described in different terms in the article: it is a word applied specifically to the mass murders at Katyn.qp10qp 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at present Comment:
  • I was one of the reviewers who originally reviewed the article during its peer review. I had several comments for improvement then, but now the article is going for FA it must satisfy much more demanding criteria. I have several problems with the article as it stands that I would like to see addressed. Most are issues of neutrality or grammar/prose/good writing:
  • I personally find articles that use a single mixed reference set for both footnotes (editorial asides or notes) and citations (note of source of information) poor - it makes it impossible to know for each numbered footnote if you need to click on it to read a footnote or else if there is a citation only for that number. It also has the effect of falsely inflating the list of references when in fact many references are simply comments rather than citations of facts - it makes an article therefore seem more heavily cited than it actually is. I would strongly advocate using a system such as that used in War against Nabis of splitting the footnotes and citations into different sections. I will provide more detailed comments later, but this is the main issue I have with it at the moment. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note we have no 'just footnotes', we either have direct references or footnotes that contain quotations and/or several references and/or explanation of some contradictions within them. Thus all references are in fact references, using a style found in many academic books (where a footnote may give you just a source, or a source and a discussion of it). I am not aware of a mechanism that would allow me to divide inline references, generated by cite.php (recommended by
    WP:CITE) in such a way that we could have plain references in one section, and more traditional footnotes, marked differently in text, in another. If you know how to do so, please let me know.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hi, using templates hcref and cnote it is possible to do exactly this - see War against Nabis for an example of this in use. I don't see the need for mixed footnotes - all of your references can easily be rewritten as either footnotes or citations, this is not mandated by FA requirements but I personally feel that it would be of great benefit to the article - it makes clear what statements are being precisely cited and which merely have notes, some of whose content may be cited. It almost seems like a sly way to not have to cite a fact whilst appearing to cite it - state in the article "5 plus 5 equals 11", cite it, and then in the mixed footnote/reference, have a discussion of the number 5 and the number 11 with cites, but not actually cite the statement made in the article. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doh, I should've looked at the Nabis article before replying :) I completely missed the development of those templates, but I throughly support their use; I will see about converting the article ref system into them soon.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Piotrus, I am glad to see that you are happy to take this suggestion on board. As a result of various changes below, I am happy to change my "oppose" to a "comment". Once the above is implemented, will be happy to change my "comment" to a "support". - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried my best to differentiate between notes and citations. I believe all notes are now proper notes; the 'long' citations are the few with quotes - I think they are acceptable in the current format. It appears that some long notes with several external links break the system, so in two cases I had to 'cheat' a little bit leaving the note text under the note - I hope this will be fixed in the future. Any further suggestions are welcome.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also most nervous about the degree of POV being claimed against the article. I would like to see this issue settled before the article makes FA. This should be done in a proper fashion - if editors have allegations of bias they shold point out the contested statements, provide opposing statements with citations and then rework the statement in the form "A belevies X (cite 1) but B believes Y (cite 2)". Whatever the disagreement, there is a scholarly way to resolve this. This should be done NOW, during the article's FAC candidacy, to remove any potential bias if and when it goes FA. it is not acceptable for this controversy to continue if and when the article makes FA status. My own point of view as someone reading the article but knowing little of the history it recounts is that the article is slightly biased. Not in that it states facts incorrectly, but that words are clearly chosen to slant the editorial aangle of the article. Many of the words need making more neutral and less loaded - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC) - this seems to have been addressed now[reply]
Indeed, if proper sources are presented that would suggest some POV is dominant (or missing) from the article, we will be happy to use them. User:Qp10qp, who, as far as I know, is not a Pole, has done a great job incorporating Soviet POV into the article, and I trust he will do so if new sources are presented. If you or any other editor would like to do some POV-improvements to the article, you are most welcomed: unfortunately as far as my biased sense is concerned, the article sounds neutral already.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a copyedit - eg in the very first sentence "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation which started" - this should be either "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation that started" or "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation, which started" in order to be grammatically correct.
Again, I am leaving such matters in the hand of native speakers (and once again, thank you, User:Qp10qp, for the help with that!).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I do feel someone still needs to copyedit this article before it gets FA status, whoever that is - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, why are the polish troop strength given in battalions but the soviet ones in divisions and brigades - this makes comparison difficult especially those who are unfamiliar with the terminology.
Because such data is given by our references, their authors didn't bother to much with standardization, unfortunately. Note that battalions were the highest unit of organization on the Polish side, while the Soviet units were organized on a much higher level. We can perhaps ilink the terms like battalions and divisions, although I don't think they would do much good until we have articles like battalion (Polish 1939) or division (Soviet 1939), those terms cover a really big variety of regional differences in organization, AFAIK.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the polish strength is 20,000, then how were 250,000 polish troops captured - again this s in the infobox. This needs explaining or correcting
Please note that infobox also states: "improvised parts of the Polish Army". I have not been able to find any more information on those improvised parts, and this is a short description of a real mess: there were a few reasonably organized formations in the east, but there were also many more retreating in disarray from the Germans, all that created a mass of soldiers, some of which put a resistance but many just surrendered, that were in the end all taken prisoner by the Soviets.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the French, for their part, had made many promises to Poland before the German offensive, including air support, these assurances turned out to have been entirely cynical" - this language and similar throughout the article might need adjusting per wikipedia "words to avoid" as taking editorial leeway and not just reporting the facts - "cynical" is passing a value judgement. - FIXED
Agreed (and fixed), I don't think it was a word I added. If you catch any other instances of such POVed language, please let us know so it can be corrected.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Soviets murdered tens of thousands of Polish prisoners of war" - again murder is a perjorative word - "murder" is probably too strong a word here - use "kill", which presents exactly the same fact without passing judgement on it.
I'd leave it to the native speaker, but considering that this refers mostly to the Katyn massacre, which would in turn imply the use of the verb 'massacred', I think murder is neutral enough. But I don't see a big difference between murder and killing in terms of use in English language, so again, I may not be the best person to address this comment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reaction of Poland's two main allies, France and Britain, was muted, since neither wanted a confrontation with the Soviet Union at that stage" - this is uncited and should be easy to cite if this is the official reason given or something reported in a published work elsewhere. If this is not the official reason given but a supposition of the author then this is original research and should not be included. Was it practical for Britain or France to intervene militarily at this point? Did they have any forces in place? - FIXED
Good catch, again it was not a statement added by myself. I will look for refs, and hopefully the editor who added it will surface here, if nothing is found I will remove this in a few days. Found a ref.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British evaded their obligations under the terms of the Anglo-Polish Agreement" - again evaded is a value judgement - since there was no declaration of war, as stated in the article, it is hard to say whether the mutual assistance treaty would have applied. - FIXED
Again, fixed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Foreign Secretary Halifax bluntly told him that Britain was free to make up its own mind whether to declare war on the Soviet Union" - citation? - FIXED
Again, fixed :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, I understand how frustrating the FA process can be and would like to commend the article's authors on taking the article this far. Chin up! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's nice to hear some words of encouragement :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Qp10qp to the points of Pocklington Dan:

  • In terms of what has happened to this article since the Good Article award: I would argue that it is no longer the same article and has been entirely rewritten in order to prepare it for FAC. Compare these two versions here to see what I mean. The article then had 41 references and it now has 82. As a native English speaker, I have rewritten most of the prose; and, though I suppose I must be blind to my own mistakes, I simply cannot see where copyediting issues remain in the prose. I'm surprised that no one has noticed such improvements to both referencing and prose. Here, for example, are the opening two paragraphs: are they not encyclopedic, neutral, concise? The same neutral and concise style was deliberately used throughout the article, with each occurence of words like "murder", "execution" or "annexe" carefully researched to justify its inclusion.qp10qp 14:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation which started on 17 September 1939, during the early stages of World War II, sixteen days after the Nazi German attack on Poland. It ended in a decisive victory for the Soviet Union's Red Army.
Shortly before the onset of the war, in 1939, the Soviet Union attempted to create an anti-German alliance with the United Kingdom, France, Romania and Poland on the condition that Soviet troops be allowed to enter onto Polish territory. The negotiations ended in failure, after which the Soviets instead signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany on 23 August, in accordance with which, on 17 September, the Red Army crossed the eastern Polish border, following German successes in western Poland. To justify their actions, the Soviet Union issued a declaration that the Polish state had ceased to exist, and that the Soviet actions were intended to protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians who inhabited the eastern part of Poland.

qp10qp 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You say: Needs a copyedit - eg in the very first sentence "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation which started" - this should be either "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation that started" or "Soviet invasion of Poland of 1939 was a military operation, which started" in order to be grammatically correct.
It remains for me to address Grafikm's point about the figures and dashes in one place, but otherwise, I do not agree that the article needs a copyedit (apart from ongoing tidying of fresh edits by non-English speakers). You are wrong on the point about "which" and "that", by the way (once again, this is a matter of taste): the restrictive "which", like the restrictive "that", does not follow a comma; only the unrestrictive "which" follows a comma. However, since "that" and "which" are interchangeable in this construction, I am happy to change them round to suit your preference.qp10qp 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your point that you do not like to see notes and references combined is a matter of taste not FAC criteria. There is in fact a separate alphabetical list of references to help readers who wish to find a book quickly and allow the use of shortened references in the note section, where possible (such a list is requested by the criteria). The reason I prefer this method to the one with separate substantive notes is threefold: 1) with separate notes, you impose two types of note tag on the article and bother the reader to click twice: first to read the substantive note, then to read its reference; 2) subsequent editors may delete the reference without deleting the substantive note, leaving an orphaned note; 3) and most important to me, this method enables the combining of notes and references: in this article sometimes a reference is given combined with a note followed by a different reference, thus providing the reader with a reference which supports the point in the article, combined with further information, referenced to another source.
  • On this, you also say: It almost seems like a sly way to not have to cite a fact whilst appearing to cite it - state in the article "5 plus 5 equals 11", cite it, and then in the mixed footnote/reference, have a discussion of the number 5 and the number 11 with cites, but not actually cite the statement made in the article. But why would one spend ages researching the article and then only pretend to cite the information? I can't read the Polish and non-English sources, but I can promise you that all the English references have been checked and do reference the information in question; in many cases I even referenced things that were already referenced to Polish sources, just in case (those things that Piotrus reffed for you earlier, by the way, were actually reffed at the end of the passage, rather than at the end of each sentence; and expressions such as "cynical" and "failed to honour their obligations" were also precisely reffed to non-Polish sources, though I'm happy to see them to go if they are thought too strong). So, if you said to me, "I suspect this Polish reference of being fake", I could probably point you to one of the English sources for an alternative verification. It's a normal scholarly practice to mix pure cites, explanatory notes, and points of further information, though journals vary widely in their styles. (I see that Piotrus is changing the reffing system according to your suggestion, so this need not be an issue an more.)qp10qp 15:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a well-written, thoroughly referenced account. Objections that the Soviet POV is not well enough presented seem tendentious. One question, though: why is Template:Campaignbox Polish September Campaign present, given that refers to the German invasion? Biruitorul 01:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The campaignbox is used because Polish September Campaign covers both the German and Soviet invasions, and thus the the campaignbox has both battles. Would you suggest creating a separate campaignbox with only Soviet-Polish battles?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fine -- now I've clicked on all the battles, I saw that a few refer to Polish-Soviet battles. "Invasion of Poland" does link to the German invasion, but I suppose that's fine. Biruitorul 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again that Piotrus-style argument: "If it is not Polish, than it is Soviet". How about national Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian resistance movements against Polish occupation? Vlad fedorov 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My advice: write something about those movements! I'd like to know about them myself, and if what you write meets the usual standards, then by all means let's keep it in the article. Biruitorul 02:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where to write about? Piotrus would delete everything immediately!Vlad fedorov 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of sourced content is vandalism, and since Piotrus is not (to my knowledge) a vandal, you should have nothing to fear. Let's assume good faith, at least. Biruitorul 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this article is better than many other former featured articles. Please note a huge amount of work invested here. The sourcing is excellent and illustrations are great. The subject is very difficult and fuels opposite opinions. The article describes Soviet invasion of Poland as seen by contemporary History and refutes old Soviet propaganda. The latter helps to follow
    pseudo-science or more precisely a professional disinformation that has no place in this Encyclopedia. Unlike many other articles in WP, this article is free from Soviet falsifications of history.Biophys 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Belarusian national movement, as well as Ukrainian and Lithuanian was both against Poland and Soviet Union occupation. And I had argued about the total absense of these POV. However, Soviet Union POV whatever it is, should also be present if you pretend to be NPOV really. Please pay attention that Biophys now expilicitly advocates elimination of NPOV from the article. Vlad fedorov 04:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would observe that Soviet historiography of the invasion and aftermath is both described and illustrated. "NPOV" should not be taken to mean "Soviet account of history" = (carries identical weight to) "Western account of history". —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to comment that NPOV comes around by mentioning every viewpoint and putting it in context, not by culling out viewpoints that you disagree with or term pseudo-science - you should not be taking the editorial position of culling out certain viewpoints but putting them in and contrasting the various viewpoint - this is the path to neutrality. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely my point above. It is tendentious and intellectually dishonest to suppress material about the strenuous (not to say hysterical) attempts of pre-war Polish diplomacy to prevent the rapprochement between the West and Soviets against Hitler, a counterproductive attitude that ultimately resulted in the Soviet-Nazi Pact. Instead of picturing Poland as a victim of unmotivated aggression, we should have some words about Poland being one of Hitler's jackals during the partition of Czechoslovakia. Where's the relevant data about the revanchist plans of the Polish General Staff to invade the Soviet Union in the late 1930s? We have discussed it all over Wikipedia, but the article prefers not to mention these embarrassing points at all. That's why it reads like a tool of anti-Russian Kaczynski propaganda. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet POV is discussed. So is modern Belorussian and Ukrainian (we even have a big quote from
Plan Wschód, a recently created article that I will link from the Soviet Invasion shortly, was a defensive plan. Oh, and we am still waiting for you to present a single source to back up your POVs...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Ghirla, do you not think that the following covers the breakdown in negotiations for an allied-Soviet treaty prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?
Negotiations for a Soviet-British-French alliance failed in summer 1939 partly because of Soviet insistence on a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to Romania and on activation of the treaty not only by direct aggression but by "indirect aggression" towards territories in the assumed Soviet sphere of influence.[19] For their part, the Soviets believed the British and the French could not be trusted on the principle of collective security, since they had failed to assist Spain or protect Czechoslovakia from the Fascists and Nazis, and that the western allies might be content to see the Soviet Union and Germany exhaust themselves fighting each other.[20] Soviet demands for right of passage and pre-emptive entry into Poland, Romania and the Baltic States were rejected by the respective governments, who, as Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Józef Beck, put it, did not trust the Red Army, once on their territory, to ever leave.[8] On 23 August, the Soviets instead signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Nazi Germany, nine days before the German invasion.
These were the reasons that I found in the sources. The Polish objection to Soviet right of passage is mentioned, and so their obstruction on that point is covered in the article. If you have sources for other Polish objections being the main or overriding reason for the failure of the negotiations, please provide them. I would be genuinely prepared to use such additional information in the article because I'm rather disliking the suggestion that I have falsified or deliberately omitted facts (I haven't the slightest reason to do so).qp10qp 15:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a great article, very well put together. I held back from fully endorsing it to see how the presentation issues were being addressed -- but now, after a few days of work (some in response to the constructive criticism above), it all looks much tighter and smooth. (A technical note: I especially like how it looks with the notes on two columns, but this works on only one of the browsers I use; anyone knows how to make that work always?) As for the above objections based on the Soviet point of view, I find them lacking in merit: what exactly is the beef there? I couldn't quite tell. To sum up: a hearty thumbs up for an FA — this article well deserves it. Turgidson 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article is written in heavy, unimaginative language hard to follow from below the opening paragraph, the result of a lack of editorial cohesion. As we know, GA and FA candidates follow different requirements. The sheer accumulation of facts hardly constitutes brilliant writing of a professional standard. Besides, the volume of citations, notes and references exceeding the size of the actual text makes it easy to see why the article is so dumpy. Personally, I have a hard time accepting the tone of many statements, like the one about the invasion ending “in a decisive victory for the Soviet Union's Red Army.” Invasions don’t end in victories, but in conquering of foreign territories. --Poeticbent talk 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, the article reads well to me, but neither of us is a native speaker. I'd like to say
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check would be quite shocked in that case; after all, our goal is to reference every single fact within Wikipedia. Moving on to invasions, I think invasions can and do end in victory, and the September Campaign ended in a victory for both Germans and Soviets. While 'decisive' adjective could be disputed, I think it's correct - although I will not oppose to its removal, if this is your goal.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Of course invasions can result in victories. In England, our main invader,
    William I of England
    , is known as "William the Conqueror", not "William the Occupier". I must say that the only times I have been accused of bad writing on Wikipedia have been by non-English speakers. I have no idea why that is, but perhaps my style, which uses parallel constructions, semicolons, and rhythmic echoes reads a little blurrily to a non-English speaker.
  • As far as I am concerned, the article follows a coherent and logical, even obvious, structure: prelude, campaign, aftermath.
  • The material is dense, of course. But I tried to avoid preparatory or passive constructions, and to locate readers quickly in each sentence. To lead readers through the article, I started most paragraphs with an active declarative sentence or phrase; and I ended each paragraph with a short snapper, to give the readers a sense of rhythm as they read through the article. I kept complex sentences to the middle of paragraphs.
  • In many places, more has gone into the prose than meets the eye. For example: “The Red Army had sowed confusion at first by claiming they were intervening to save Poland from the Nazis”. This short, direct sentence summarises a large wodge of reading matter; it is designed to act both as a prologue to the topic and as a representation of the prologue to the action.
  • Support. Excellent article. The above objection by Poeticbent is the only serious argument I've seen so far for not supporting. But it is a thing easily correctible. I do not agree that the language is "heavy", but there are a lot of facts squized in the minimal possible volume, not something that you read in leasure time. But then, which FA about history are leasure readings? PS. how about "The ensuing fighting with the partially resisting - partially retreating Polish troops resulted in a decisive victory for the Soviet Union's Red Army." or smth similar. Anyway, the article is 99% of the way to FA.:Dc76 19:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, now that would be heavy. :) qp10qp 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ya, you are right, it is heavy :-) I wanted to say "the fighting", not "the invasion" resulted in a dicisive victory. :Dc76 12:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A good article, describing one of tragedies of Poland, which was stabbed in the back by Soviets, main allies of Nazi Germany until June 1941. Arguments put forward by some users from countries of former Soviet Union are ludicrous and remind me of best years of Stalinist propaganda. If somebody calls invasion of one country by another "the act of reunification", there is nothing to talk about with this gentleman (how about this - Poland seized Kiev in 1920 to reunificate Galicia with Kiev. How do you like it?). Also, Pilsudski - Hitler Pact of 1937? Where did you get this? Pilsudski's ghost must have signed it, I guess.
  • Partition of Czechoslovakia? It has nothing to do with the subject, besides - look at
    Zaolzie
    . Revanchist plans of the Polish General Staff to invade the Soviet Union in the late 1930s? Well, dear Sir. Poles are not that utterly stupid. Nobody serious in 1930s Poland ever dreamt of invading the Soviet giant. "Soviet-Nazi Symphony was inspired by the Polish-Nazi Étude" - well, poor old Uncle Joe was forced to sign a pact with Hitler because of the Poles. So sad.
  • Last but not least - some users from Soviet Union clearly expect Piotrus to write a book on this, I pressume, not an article. Tymek 22:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please emphazise some and former. There are many users who had something to do with the former USSR. :Dc76 12:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure do, some and former. This is obvious, apologies Tymek 19:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no problem, don't worry. But it's worth reminding, b/c it is not from former USSR vs from outside former USSR. Even Soviet literature before 1991 does not universaly call this "liberation", and "invasion" can also be found, for the two words are not mutually exclusive. (E.g. lattest: USA invaded Iraq and liberated its people from the dictature of Saddam Husein.) :Dc76 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very good article--clearly written, well illustrated and thoroughly referenced. I personally do not detect any untoward bias one way or the other, and if I may make a side-comment, I wish we could just put all these myths about the "Polish Cabal" to rest. Piotrus and Co. have done excellent work on this article and I personally am of the opinion that it is FA-caliber. There may be a few nit-picky grammar and punctuation details to fix (I saw some but can't remember where and haven't the time to go look for them again) but other than that, looks good. K. Lásztocska 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not much if anything to add to Lásztocska's comments directly above. It does read a bit dense, but I doubt that can be improved further without losing essential detail. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The density of information is well-suited for an encyclopaedia to be used as reference, and anyone starting research on this topic is better off starting here than any other single source - this is the greatest criteria. The only constructive comment would be to realign the refs to one format - the three different groups can be confusing to the casual reader. This is another good FA from a prolific and valued group of editors. István 04:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support After giving the article a copyedit, it satisfies the criteria. - Merzbow 06:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose I've spotted at least one {{fact}} tag, besides the sources the article is based on are mostly Polish and their reliability in such a sensitive area could be questionable. Imho such an article should be based on more neutral sources, with partisan sources (Polish or Russian) used occasionally to reference some details and with the appropriate attribution. Alæxis¿question? 14:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the citation tag in the lead is concerned, it must have been very recent and I hadn't noticed it. But it's always worth reading on through the article to see if lead material is cited elsewhere. Anyway, I've added a double citation to cover it there.
On Polish sources, those written in Polish are actually in the minority. I've read a great amount on this subject in English, and often, I promise, I was searching for information about the Russsian or partisan side of the matter (of which there is more included than has been implied by the article's critics above). Where Polish writers (or writers with Polish names) were published in English by publishing companies whose editorial policy I trust, then I was prepared to regard them as objectively reliable sources: for example: Prazmowska, published by Cambridge University Press. The English-language sources were written by people with such names that I often couldn't guess their original ethnicity: here are some of the names of such authors cited: Cienciala, Sanford, Rieber, Ferro, Shaw, Neilson, Kenez, Dunnigan, Snyder, Trenin, Gelven, Zaloga, Weinberg, Degras, Taylor, Fischer, Moynihan, Tucker, Jackson, Dean, Davies, Stachura, Ivanova, Wilson, Subtelny, Rummel, Kushner, Knox, Wegner. Who knows how many of these English-language authors were originally Polish, but clearly many of them weren't; I felt confident that there was enough referencing from these sources to balance any suspicion a reader might have about Polish-language sources: and in many cases, they do back up what the Polish sources reference. It would be good to have more Russian, Belarusian or Ukrainian sources, but I haven't been able to talk anyone from those ethnicities into helping with the article (and may I say that I believe them entirely when they say that this event is viewed quite differently in their cultures). However, I can assure you that the article fairly represents the material I could find in English-language sources and therefore provides Wikipedia with a reading of these events which is standard for the English-speaking world.qp10qp 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A quick count in the current version of the article reveals: about 35 citations from Polish-language source, 3 from Russian (the disparity is not based on anything else then the fact that none of the editors engaged in writing this article can read Russian well enough) and about 110 citations from English-language. Printed references below note 27 English, 5 Polish and 1 Russian. I don't think that a single controversial fact is backed by Polish-sources only, they are used only for minor details. In any case, the argument that the article is based mostly on Polish sources certainly is incorrect. Please reconsider your argument, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read the article more thoroughly and changed my mind a bit. It's really well written and maybe the sources' origins aren't such a problem. However I've also found some smaller issues:
1.The pre-war Polish relations with Germany (like the participation in the Chechoslovakia's partition) should be mentioned imho. One sentence should be enough...
2.
This is written not clear enough. First, I doubt that USSR wanted to extermine all Polish citizens - including Ukrainians, Belorussians and Jews. I don't know the context in which this appears in Ms. Olsak-Glass' review but this source is not enough to justify such a claim. The whole quote is confusing because it mixes German (ghettoes, ..) and Soviet (deportations,..) policies.
3.
This is likely to be true but it's written as to imply that Poles, being a plurality, had more moral rights to reign these territories. Of course I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately writing it this way but it'd be better to rephrase it (as in reality Ukrainians formed a majority in Western Ukraine and Belorussians - in Western Belarus).
4.
This is sourced by the book Elżbieta Trela-Mazur (1997). in Włodzimierz Bonusiak, Stanisław Jan Ciesielski, Zygmunt Mańkowski, Mikołaj Iwanow: Sowietyzacja oświaty w Małopolsce Wschodniej pod radziecką okupacją 1939–1941 (Sovietization of education in eastern Lesser Poland during the Soviet occupation 1939–1941). Kielce: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna im. Jana Kochanowskiego. I think that the words I bolded could be easily omitted from the article (as it's already written what Sovietization is) even though I agree with Bonusiak et al that Sovietization is inimical to just about any culture... Alæxis¿question? 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. What's the significance of
sanacja
...
2. Since the quotes specifically distinguishes Poles from Jews, it is safe to assume that it does not include Belorussian or Ukrainians. The reference seems quite adequate for the point its making, but if you'd like to suggest some better, alternative rewording, go right ahead.
3. If you have a source that states just that, we can surely add it. Do note that if we were to remove current statement and introduce yours, the POV balance would shift the other way. I and presumably other editors have no problem with NPOVing that with your suggested formulation - but again, please provide citatins for it.
4. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether it is necessary, as indeed a link to Sovietization is the most important, and explanations of what the policy was is of secondary nature to the article.
Thank you for your comments, I hope we can resolve all those issues quickly.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to comments of Alæxis

1.The pre-war Polish relations with Germany (like the participation in the Chechoslovakia's partition) should be mentioned imho. One sentence should be enough...

I will look into this, as I have tried to many times before. It seems to me that though the Polish leaders were as much a bunch of nasty fascist-leaning heavies as any other late 1930s national leaders, they didn’t actually get on with Hitler. When he demanded access through Poland to Königsburg, for example, he was refused.
What those who accuse the Polish leaders of sympathy with Hitler should consider, in my opinion, is that Poland had no choice but to bend over backwards not to upset Hitler, because it was quite clear that he only wanted half an excuse to invade Poland. The British and French also put pressure on the Poles not to give Hitler an excuse to become aggressive. This was the key to Beck's policy of restraint towards Hitler, as far as I can see. In terms of future diplomacy and the legitimacy of the Polish state, it was essential that the Germans could at no point in the future come to a negotiating table claiming provocation. But I tend to think this stuff should go in the article on the
German invasion of Poland
.
On Czechoslovakia, you are not the first to mention this; but I have not come across a connection between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet-Polish campaign yet. I would be grateful if someone could point me to a source where I could research any such connection.
I've followed your advice and added this info to
Invasion of Poland (1939) article. Let's see what happens )) Alæxis¿question? 17:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

2.

This is written not clear enough. First, I doubt that USSR wanted to extermine all Polish citizens - including Ukrainians, Belorussians and Jews. I don't know the context in which this appears in Ms. Olsak-Glass' review but this source is not enough to justify such a claim. The whole quote is confusing because it mixes German (ghettoes, ..) and Soviet (deportations,..) policies.

I have always disliked that source and that quotation in the notes. It was there long before the article even became a good article, and I think the article has outgrown it in quality; so you have given me an excuse to remove it. Source removed.
It wasn’t the main source for the information, however. Stachura makes a convincing case for similarity between the Nazi and Soviet treatment of the Poles, and so his reference is sufficient. Of course, the Soviets weren’t mass-murdering the Jews, but nor were the Nazis at this stage in history. What happened at Katyn was certainly horrendous; and though I don’t believe there was a deliberate attempt to exterminate all Polish citizens, I do believe there was a systematic attempt to wipe out the entire Polish superstructure of officers, lawyers, managers, bosses, politicians, etc.—even foremen. This policy was the same under the Soviets and the Nazis. Rieber (p. 44), who has looked into the documents released since 1990, says that the Stalinist regime "aimed at undermining Polish statehood and the gene pool of the Polish people".

3.

This is likely to be true but it's written as to imply that Poles, being a plurality, had more moral rights to reign these territories. Of course I'm not accusing anyone of deliberately writing it this way but it'd be better to rephrase it (as in reality Ukrainians formed a majority in Western Ukraine and Belorussians - in Western Belarus).

I have rephrased it so that all angles are covered. The note gave all the population figures, so no implication was intended. The article at no point suggests that the Poles had a right to rule those territories. (Those who had the right to rule those territories were the Belarusians and the Ukrainians, of course.)

4.

This is sourced by the book Elżbieta Trela-Mazur (1997). in Włodzimierz Bonusiak, Stanisław Jan Ciesielski, Zygmunt Mańkowski, Mikołaj Iwanow: Sowietyzacja oświaty w Małopolsce Wschodniej pod radziecką okupacją 1939–1941 (Sovietization of education in eastern Lesser Poland during the Soviet occupation 1939–1941). Kielce: Wyższa Szkoła Pedagogiczna im. Jana Kochanowskiego. I think that the words I bolded could be easily omitted from the article (as it's already written what Sovietization is) even though I agree with Bonusiak et al that Sovietization is inimical to just about any culture... Alæxis¿question? 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don’t think it will be any loss to the article. What happened with Sovietization is clear enough from the following paragraph. Removed.
Thanks for your constructive comments.qp10qp 03:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well read; well referenced.--KoberTalk 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Gives the big image, a good gateway to the topic. I'm impressed by the detailed analysis by qp10qp. Article is flooded by references, (difficult to find more than 3 consecutive sequences without refs) and the sources are many. Now, when a major error (a bad colour of the Polish flag) has been corrected ;-) I can wholeheartedly support the nomination. --Beaumont (@) 14:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)&oldid=1141922544"