Talk:London Victory Celebrations of 1946

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Political Controversy section

This section is currently a complete mess. Information which supports one PoV has been pushed to the front of the section and information about the fact that both sets of invitations sent to Poles has been minimised and scattered. We have the response of the British government to criticism given in two different places. We have the Davies quote which is entirely unsupported by historical records given before the historical records which Davies disagrees with! The same is true for the quote from Olson & Cloud, the one which was specifically denied at the time by the British government.

I propose that the article first describes what happened and then provides analysis. The first event chronologically was the invitation to the Polish government, so that should be covered first. Then we can cover the invitation sent to the London Poles. After that goes the analysis from people such as Davies and Olson & Cloud. Varsovian (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

misrepresentation of what the sources say

Varsovian keeps adding his OR that "This statement flatly contradicts available historical records,[25] media reports of the time,[23][26] statements from the British government[27][28] and the memoirs of western command Poles,[3] including those who were invited to attend.[29]" in reference to the claim made by Olson and Cloud that ""the Labour government invited Communist Poland to take part - and, to avoid annoying Stalin, barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.""

Ok. First, for this not to be OR and SYNTH you need a source which explicitly states "Olson and Cloud's claims flatly contradict etc." or something close to it. You cannot put your own opinion in the text. Even if Olson and Cloud IS contradicted by historical records, which I don't think it is, you STILL need to find a reliable source which directly refers to their work; remember that the standard for Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. Otherwise, the most you can do is put the various statements side by side.

Varsovian also finally added some citations to his OR claim but I don't see how they support even an indirect relationship with what Olson and Cloud are saying. Indeed, the sources provided over all SUPPORT Cloud and Olson!

Radeksz is either seriously mistaken or plain old lying when he says that the sources I provided all support Olson & Cloud’s claim that the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” The sources all show that some of such Poles were invited, as I shall now show.Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty disingenuous to accuse me of lying here . You tacked on a bunch of citations to support a claim whereas in fact all the sources in the citation support the opposite conclusion.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I WP:AGF and think that you are mistaken. O&C say that the British govt "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." They do not say "barred some of the hundreds and thousands" or "the vast majority of the hundreds and thousands". The other sources tell us that some of the hundreds and thousands were invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Plain old lying" does not sound like AGF to me so please drop the act. The rest is just typical weaseling. It is not up to you to interpret primary sources, each of which is in fact about how hundreds and thousands of Polish soldiers were barred from the parade. You misrepresented these primary sources.radek (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Either ... or". You are entirely correct that hundreds of thousands of Polish soldiers were not invited. Unfortunately Olson & Cloud do not say that: they say that the the British govt "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." Varsovian (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"flatly contradicts ...media reports"

"media reports" is cited to this chapter. The relevant passages in the text are:

• "However, to give the Soviets credit, when they held their victory parade in Red Square, representatives of the 1st and 2nd Polish Armies were invited to attend and marched alongside the victorious Red Army - this is more than can be said for the British response" - so Soviets invited Poles, but same thing cannot be said for Brits. How does this contradict O&C?
• "After the British Government decided to switch its recognition from the Polish Government-in-exile in London to the Polish Provisional Government in Warsaw, it no longer felt obliged to invite the armed forces of the exiled Government to the victory parade that was to be held in London in 1946. Instead it asked Warsaw to send its men to attend. This move not only created a great deal of bitterness among the Poles in the West but brought about an outraged cry of "unfair" from many leading Britons." - again how in monkey heck does this contradict C&O?
• "The only Pole present at the British victory parade on the 7th June, 1946, was Colonel Kuropieska who attended as a diplomatic courtesy" - hmm, ok, so there was 1. I don't think that is enough to contradict O&C
• "The key element in the equation was not to offend the Provisional Government in Warsaw and so, by extension, to offend Moscow. " - again, this appears to SUPPORT rather than CONTRADICT C&O.
• And finally we get to something that could be considered a "press report" (actually a letter to the Times): "Sir John Slessor, Marshal of the RAF, also wrote to "The Times" seething at the British reaction: "For gross bad manners and craven ingratitude this is surely unbeatable. It is, alas, only one more example of the sort of thing that makes it difficult nowadays to be proud to be British."" - which also supports C&O rather than contradicts it.

So this appears to be some playing shenanigans with the citations, where a source which actually SUPPORTS Cloud and Olson is given as supposedly CONTRADICTING it. This is a great misrepresentation of sources.

Somehow, despite his extensive quoting, Radeksz misses the only media report quoted in the whole chapter. I quote “As "The Times" reported at the time "The Polish Government accepted, but the contingent has not yet arrived. Unfortunately, it seems that none of the Polish servicemen who fought in the West under British command will take part. Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain were invited, but they do not wish to march unless Polish soldiers and sailors of the Western Command can march with them." ” (emphasis added and note that all Poles who fought in the battle of Britain did so under British command, see 303 Squadron for example details and Battle of Britain for further information). So when Olson & Cloud claim that the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” they are contradicting The Times, as I stated.Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Polish airmen were invited is irrelevant and already in the article anyway. What Cloud and Olson state is that thousands of others were not invited/barred. The source you are providing supports this. The rest of Varsovian's response is in the same vein. I'm really not gonna bother.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Olson & Cloud do not state "that thousands of others were not invited/barred." Olson & Cloud bluntly state that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were barred. But they can not have been barred if some were invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The other source given here is a PRIMARY SOURCE, the Pittsburgh Press. The relevant text is: "Russia refused to send a delegation of fighting men to honor the British celebration. So did Yugoslavia and Poland, the latter because Battle of Britain Polish pilots loyal to the defunct London Polish government had been invited. The Battle of Britain Poles also refused to participate."

Complaining that a media report is a primary source: ingenious!Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm complaining that YOU, rather than a reliable source, are claiming that these media reports contradict Cloud & Olson. That's not your job - to interpret primary sources. Nevermind the fact that the primary sources support Cloud and Olson.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The primary sources do not support Olson & Cloud's claim that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were "barred". The primary sources show that some of such Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so that indicates that the RAF Poles were invited (which is already mentioned in the article a few sentences down) but how in the world does it contradict the claim that """the Labour government invited Communist Poland to take part - and, to avoid annoying Stalin, barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command"???

If one source says that “the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command” were “barred” (not ‘some of the’ but simply ‘the’) it contradicts a source which says that some of the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were invited. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh......... What? If P then Q does not imply if not P then not Q. This is elementary logic, otherwise all non-nuns would be non-Catholics. Nevermind that this is OR, etc.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If a source states that some western command Poles were invited, it is contradicted by a source which claims that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were barred. That is what the article currently says. Varsovian (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's just for the media reports one, I'll look at the rest in a sec.radek (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"flatly contradicts...historical records"

The citation for the supposed flat contradiction of C&O by historical records is another PRIMARY SOURCE, Hansard. The claim that this "flatly contradicts" is pure OR and invention as it (very obviously, doesn't refer to C&O nor could it). At best, this can be presented ALONGSIDE C&O, a SECONDARY source, not in contradiction to it.

Historical records have a habit of being primary sources. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do, but YOU don't get to decide whether a historical record/primary source contradicts a secondary source. Other researchers and reliable sources get to decide that. Look, the policy on OR has been explained to you already ... what? Half a dozen times? Yet you are still persisting in this and this time around you misrepresented sources to push this agenda. Enough already.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But it's not just that. The relevant text is:

132. Mr. Teeling asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of the Polish airmen who took part in the Battle of Britain will take part in the Victory march on 8th June; how many of the Polish armed forces who fought side by side with the British forces, and who are now in this country,, will take part; and what were the terms of the invitation to the Polish forces to take part.

Mr. McNeil His Majesty's Government contemplate the inclusion in the R.A.F. contingent in the March of a representative party of 25 Polish airmen (including one officer) who fought in the Battle of Britain. There will he no separate representation of other Polish armed forces now in this country, since these do not form part of His Majesty's Farces, but the Polish Government have been invited to send a contingent of three high-ranking officers, three aides-de-camp or staff officers and a flag party of three men, followed by a detachment of.24 men representative of the Polish fighting services.

So how does this exactly contradict ""the Labour government invited Communist Poland to take part - and, to avoid annoying Stalin, barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command."". There's no mention of Stalin. No mention of Communist Poland - unless the reference to "the Polish Government have been invited..." refers to the Communist government of Poland, in which case, once again, it SUPPORTS C&O rather than contradicts it. More sourcing shenanigans.radek (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted above for the newspaper reports, the source says that some of the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were invited and hence a source which claims that “the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command” were “barred” (not ‘some of the’ but simply ‘the’) contradicts that source. Specifically, Olson & Cloud contradict that source.Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"flatly contradicts...statements from the British government"

The given citations are, again, PRIMARY sources, Hansard [1] [2] - basically it seems like a few statements from hansard were taken and arbitrarily split up some into a "historical record" part and some into "statements from the British government" - though they're all essentially statements by a single person.

Statements made to the house are not the same as written answers supplied to Hansard. As for the “statements by a single person”, all government statements are made by a single person. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant texts: "It is not true that we have not invited any members of those fighting Poles to take part in the Parade. Let me be quite honest. We have not invited the Navy and the Army, but we did invite some of the Poles who flew in the Battle of Britain, to march past in the R.A.F. contingent. The action was not taken to please M. Molotov. "

So again, some Polish pilots were invited (already mentioned). And we finally get a claim that this was not done to please Stalin. Ok, then this should be attributed to Mr. Mcneil, not "British government" - however, this is where the PRIMARY vs. SECONDARY sources distinction becomes important. Mr. McNeil may have claimed that it was not done with such a purpose, but it is up to historians to interpret whether this was indeed so or not - politicians claim all sorts of crazy things all the time. Bill Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman. Does that mean we need to write that the existence of the Lewinsky affair is contradicted by "statements from the American government"?radek (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

More confirmation that some of the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were invited by the British government. Olson & Cloud however state that the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” Their statement contradicts the statement made by the British government (in the form of a government minister speaking in the official course of his duties).Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. The invitation of Polish airmen does not imply that thousands of other Polish soldiers were not invited. And this has been said. Several times. And sources have been provided. And the sources YOU provided state the same thing. And yet you pretend that these sources say the opposite of what they actually say.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were "barred" very much does imply that no airmen were invited. Therefore a statement that some were invited is directly contradicted by a claim that "the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command" were "barred". How many times will this need to be explained to you? Varsovian (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"flatly contradicts... the memoirs of western command Poles"

This is another instance where a source which actually SUPPORTS Cloud & Olson is given as CONTRADICTING IT (flatly, no less) - in pretend like style.

As with the other sources, this one tells us that some of the western command Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So? Rest is the same.radek (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

These are the memoirs] of a Polish soldier of the time indeed. However, here are the relevant portions of the text:

• Apart from the USSR, only Poland and Yugoslavia were not represented among our Allies...." (quote in the original) - does not contradict Cloud and Olson.
• "It’s almost word for word to what we had heard on radio at the time, as angry and astonished, we listened the commentaries of the BBC man. How the hell it came about; we the first ally of England, fighting side by side the British soldiers from the very beginning of the war, and now, when it’s all over, we are not represented? Argentine, who declared war on Germany practically a few days before Germany surrendered, and now she is represented on the parade?" - does not contradict Cloud and Olson
• And it was in such circumstances and atmosphere, when in May, as I recall, some of us heard and red in papers, of the forthcoming Victory Parade. Quite frankly, we accepted it with a proverbial "shrug of shoulders" - THEY will not invite US anyway. Hadn’t we fought for that victory? We wanted to go but the invitation was not forthcoming. And then, a week or so later, a slap in the face - only the pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain were to be invited. Stunned? No. Surprised? Not quite, for almost a year now, we went through "Polacks this, Polacks that ". - does not contradict Cloud and Olson claim, supports it.

So the source states “ the pilots who took part in the Battle of Britain were to be invited.” and Olson & Cloud state that those pilots were “barred” but to Radeksz this source “does not contradict Cloud and Olson claim, supports it.” One says “invited”, the other says “barred”: need I say more? Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• A bit of time lapsed, before the reasons came out to surface. Since Great Britain already recognized new Polish government in Poland, and thousands of Polish servicemen, legally Polish citizens, were still in England, it would be diplomatically correct, to invite a contingent of each service from Poland, and together, in fraternal unisons with the "local" soldiers, take part in Victory Parade in London. At the time, we couldn’t get over the fact, that the British Government, dealing with Stalin for several years, were so naive as to think that the so called "Polish government totally subservient to USSR, would sent it’s contingents, to join their compatriots in England. We hated the communists, especially the Polish ones, and would rather vegetate abroad, than to return home and be dominated by them. Later on, we heard some rumors, that apparently, the Polish authorities were ready to sent a contingent of men, but at last moment, received a "message" from Moscow: " What’s going to happen, if your soldiers get captivate by fascists in England and never return?" That did it. As I said, it was probably just a spiteful gossip, but there is a kernel of truth." - again, this SUPPORTS Cloud and Olson.

So “it would be diplomatically correct, to invite a contingent of each service from Poland, and together, in fraternal unisons with the "local" soldiers, take part in Victory Parade in London.” is supposed to support the claim that all western command Poles were “barred”? Really?! Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Churchill knew perfectly well, that the Communist Government in Warsaw was just bunch of Kremlin’s stooges, the government he helped to create, and the real master of Poland was "uncle Joe". Perhaps it was in interest of England not to irritate, the new master of the half of the Europe, but Churchill’s whole political carrier was to take decisions against the established scheme of the things. Surely, one more irritation of Stalin would not hurt either of them. - more support for Cloud and Olson. But it's given as a citation for as source which supposedly "flatly contradicts" Cloud and Olson. More misrepresentation.radek (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As I have shown above, the only misrepresentation here is being attempted by Radeksz. Perhaps he should have read the sources more careful before attempting to claim that stating the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” does not flatly contradict multiple sources which state that some of such Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS

One should work to WP:CONSENSUS, which trumps all discussion. I happen to concur 100% with Radeksz above. This [3] DIGWUREN guidance means that Radeksz should take up the issue at WP:AE. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you 100% concur with Radeksz, could you please be so kind as to explain how Olson & Cloud's claim that the British government “barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command.” does not flatly contradict multiple sources which state that some of such Poles were invited? Varsovian (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting quite sick of having to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again, and I'm guessing Chumchum7 is experiencing a similar feeling. It just doesn't contradict it. Show me where in Olson & Cloud it says "none of the Poles were invited" or something close to it. And, AGAIN, all those sources which you claim contradict Olson & Cloud are PRECISELY about the fact that hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were not invited. Your refusal to acknowledge this, or to listen to other editors on this matter is very troubling. This is also a textbook example for why Wikipedia has a policy against original research.radek (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Olson and Cloud do not say that "hundreds and thousands of who had fought under British command were not invited". They claim that the British government "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." (emphasis added). Those two statements are not the same thing. Your refusal to accept basic rules of English grammar is tantamount to tendentious editing. Varsovian (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

From WP:CONSENUS: One or more editors who oppose a viewpoint that many other editors support may engage in tendentious editing practices where they refuse to allow consensus they don't agree with and are willing to perpetuate arguments indefinitely, effectively "filibustering" the discussion. .

From WP:OR: "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, that jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles.

and more relevantly: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Claiming, out of thin air, that C&O are "flatly contradicted" by primary sources, without any secondary source to back this up is a textbook example of an "interpretive claim", particularly, since those sources support C&O.radek (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous secondary sources which state that some of the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command were invited to the London victory parade. Such sources include Norman Davies, Dr Mark Ostrowski and Laurence Rees. I note that although we have in the article a quote from Laurance Rees stating that Polish army units were not invited but for some reason that quote ends before it comes to the part of that very same paragraph which specifically states that "Poles who had fought in the Royal Air Force were asked to take part in the parade". What an interesting omission. Varsovian (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that RAF Poles were invited is in the article already and it's irrelevant to the point being made by Olson & Cloud, as I've already said about four times above (in comments to which you replied, hence are surely aware of). No one said that there no secondary sources which state that the RAF Poles were invited, so I don't know who you're arguing with here about that. You're trying to portray this as somebody denying that RAF Poles were invited, but, sorry, no one here, nor Cloud & Olson, make that argument. All the sources you provided, as well Davies, Ostrowski, and Rees, which you are calling on now are about the fact that thousands of other Polish soldiers were NOT invited.radek (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Olson & Cloud very specifically make the claim that RAF Poles were not invited. They state that the British government "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." They do not say "barred some of the": they say "barred the". In fact, when we look at the full version of the quote in the prologue as can be independently verified online by any editor ([4]), we find it says "Yet, despite its accomplishments in the war, none Of 303's Pilots took part in the fly-past. None marched in the parade. For they were all Polish -- and Poles who had fought under British command were deliberately and specifically barred from the celebration by the British government, for fear of offending Joseph Stalin." I wonder why our article has the weaker version of Olson & Cloud's claim, not the one about "deliberately and specifically". Varsovian (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the quote in the article from the prologue (usually a summary which omits some details)? No? I believe usually a prologue comes before the main text, which why it's called the prologue, and "pg. 397" doesn't sound like it comes before the main text, unless it's a really long prologue. Does the prologue state that the RAF pilots were not invited? No. It only states that they did not march - which they didn't, right? If you want to argue with the quote you give above, then find a Wikipedia article that actually includes it, and take it there. And where do Cloud & Olson "very specifically make the claim that RAF Poles were not invited"? "Very specifically" implies something more than your own personal interpretation of the metaphysical meaning of the word "the".radek (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

still OR

With this edit [5] at least you are no longer claiming that the sources in it say the opposite of what they actually say. However, this is still OR - please see my quote from OR policy above. You need a secondary source(s) which talk about the "historical record", "media reports of the time", "statements from the British government" (actually just one dude). While this isn't as blatant a misrepresentation of what these primary sources state as what there was there before, it is still phrased in a very misleading way. First, the phrasing "Other sources" is POV as it is obviously meant to imply that these primary sources contradict Cloud&Olson, which they do not. Second, these sources are still about the fact that 'Polish pilots who had fought in the Battle of Britain were invited' , although of course they note that RAF Poles were invited. So you need a secondary source here which is about the fact that Polish pilots who had fought in the Battle of Britain were invited - otherwise, since this fact is in the article already - it should not be here.radek (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A source which states Polish pilots who had fought in the Battle of Britain were invited? There are many: Davies, Ostrowski, Rees and Anders would be the first four which spring to mind. Ostrowski also refers to a media report from the Time. Rees mentions the very same Parlimentary debate in which McNeil makes the referenced statement (and strangely enough Rees' quote is word for word the same as what that primary source Hansard has). I note that you still claim that the sources support the claim that the British government "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." when they clearly state that some of such Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, those sources are about the exclusion of Polish troops, though they mention the exception of Polish RAF pilots. You need a secondary source which is specifically about the exception. And you need 2ndery sources which specifically refer to "historical record", "media reports of the time", "statements from the British government". And you're not gonna base your argument on what the meaning of the "the" is? Again, at best the meaning of this "the" is just your interpretation - hence OR.radek (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to pretend that don't understand how English works, there is little point in continuing this discussion. Trying to argue that English does not use the definite article to refer to all of a specific group of a plural noun is little short of pathetic. As for your request for a source which is "specifically about the exception", as noted above Rees writes about that (see the full quote which is now in the article). See also the work of Krzysztof Szmagier, who also uses the word "Only". And for your request for a "2ndery sources which specifically refer to ... "media reports of the time" " see Ostrowski's work where he states "As "The Times" reported at the time:"(it's the same quote which you somehow managed to miss before". For "2ndery sources which specifically refer to ... "statements from the British government" " also see Ostowski where he states "the British Government relented and invited a delegation from the Polish Air Force to take part." Varsovian (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remain civil and do not call me pathetic again as that is a blatant and offensive personal attack.radek (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, look, let's at least see if we can agree to basic facts as they happened - RAF Poles were invited. Other Poles which served under British command were not invited. Because other Polish soldiers were not invited, RAF Poles refused to attend. Is this, in your belief, an accurate, description (omitting some details about Stalin and what have you) of what happened and what the secondary sources like Davies, Rees, Ostrowski, describe?radek (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is almost entirely accurate. My only disagreement would be your phrasing "other Polish soldiers": no Polish soldiers at all were invited, only Polish airmen were invited; the other point is whether any Poles participated according to Davies Polish pilots and groundcrew took part, however Davies appears to be the only secondary source to state that (there are media reports from the time but nothing in other secondary sources). Varsovian (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since we agree on what basically happened, why do you try to pretend that C&O are contradicted by other sources? C&O are used to reference the fact that "thousands and hundreds" of Polish soldiers were not invited. The same information is in Davies, Reese, etc. So why can't we just write what happened, source it properly, quotes and all, rather than try to create an impression that there is some great controversy in the literature over what actually happened, or try to imply that Polish soldiers were in fact invited? Again, it's not like the article tries to omit the fact that RAF Poles were invited.radek (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Olson & Cloud do not state that ""thousands and hundreds" of Polish soldiers were not invited." Olson and Cloud asset that the British government "barred the hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." If they had written that the British government "barred hundreds and thousands of Poles who had fought under British command." they would state that ""thousands and hundreds" of Polish servicemen were not invited." But they do not write that: they say "the hundreds and thousands" You may also wish to note that the article includes sources which state “the Polish fighters who had fought so valiantly with the other Allies in the war, so the Poles were left out.” [6], “To add to their humiliation and fury, they were excluded from the London victory parade in 1946 in a bid by the British to appease Stalin.” [7]. “When over 130 allied nations marched in the great 1946 Victory Parade in London, the Poles were excluded to appease Stalin.” [8], “the country was excluded from the original London celebration in 1946.” [9]. So there is dispute as to what actually happened! Furthermore, the article doesn’t even mention the fact that soldiers from no non-commonwealth/empire nation were invited (other than the honour guard for the national flag, which Poland was invited to send). The US army wasn’t invited! But when I put that fact in the article, it was promptly removed. Anybody reading this article will come away with the impression that Poland was singled out for special bad treatment when the reality is that Poland was the only nation invited to send both ‘free’ and ‘official’ forces! Varsovian (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

[10] - does anything else need to be said, or do you still wish to argue over your own personal interpretation of the meaning of the word "the"? Next time, please actually acquire and read a source before claiming that it is "flatly contradicted" by ... your own personal original research. I mean the source itself, not just the prologue.radek (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, plenty still needs to be said. Unlike you I have picked up the source in question and know that the prologue is part of it and differs from the body of the text. Now that Chumchum7 has provided us with the full quote (i.e. the bit which says that Poles were invited, funny how he's twice quoted paragraphs which confirm Poles were invited but missed out the bits which said that), we have five different versions regarding the invitation sent to Poles! Furthermore, we still have sources which state that Poland was excluded from participating. The section is a mess. What is needed is a clear description of what almost all sources agree happened (i.e. Polish govt invited to send reps, western command Polish pilots then invited also, pilots reject their invitation & the reasons therefor, Polish govt rejects its invitations, parade takes place (with Polish participation according to some sources), Polish govt announces why it rejected invite). Then we can have the analysis and the differing explanations as to why which group was invited at the time when it was invited. By the way, good luck in your attempts to learn to what the word "the" means. Varsovian (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does analysis come before a statement of what happened

Why does this article have analysis of what happened before a statement of what happened? Is there any reason that the current form should be kept? Normally we write about what happened and then have extended analysis of what happened. Varsovian (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

'Proposed' extended lede

Rather than adding the multiple tags which are needed and then be accused of not keeping to WP:POINT, I’ve moved the text which another brand new editor proposes we put into the lede to this page, added the citation needed tags and the explanations for them. Perhaps we could discuss the controversial changes which the new editor wishes to make before they are made?

The parade is also notable {{citation needed|please provide a reliable source which states the parade is now notable for this reason}} for the exclusion {{citation needed|please provide a source which states that Poles were excluded, the sources which we have and the consensus here is that some Poles were invited and some were not invited}} of all {{citation needed|please provide a reliable source which states that "all" Poles, the sources we have clearly state that some Poles were invited and the version of text which you have just reverted to also says that some Poles were invited, we also have reliable sources which state that some Poles did indeed take part in the parade; therefore it is impossible that all were 'excluded'}} Polish servicemen; hundreds thousands of whom served in the [[Polish Armed Forces in the West]] as one of the largest Allied contingents. The [[No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron|303 squadron]] was the only Polish unit invited {{citation needed|please provide a reliable source which states that only 303 were invited, the primary and secondary sources state that Polish airmen were invited, none claim that the invitation was limited to 303 squadron}}; it declined because the invitation was not extended to any other Polish unit {{citation needed|please provide a reliable source which states that 303 declined an invitation for that reason}}, despite Poland being [[Polish contribution to World War II|the fourth largest European ally during WW2]]. Poles were expected {{citation needed{{citation needed|please provide a reliable source which states that Poles did not attend that parade}} to attend the [[Moscow Victory Parade of 1945]], and the Allies did not want to antagonize [[Stalin]], whose [[Soviet Union]] claimed Poland under their [[sphere of influence]]. This is considered one of the causes of the feeling of "[[Western Betrayal]]" in Poland{{citation needed|please provide a reliable source which states that this is considered as such}}. <ref name="VicPar">Rudolf Falkowski, [http://www.geocities.com/skrzydla/Victory_parade.html THE VICTORY PARADE]. Last accessed on 31 March 2007.</ref> {{Please note that this source specifically states that some Poles were invited and thus does not support the claim that all Poles were "excluded"}} <ref name="QoH">[[Lynne Olson]], [[Stanley Cloud]], ''A Question of Honor: The Kosciuszko Squadron: Forgotten Heroes of World War II '', Knopf, 2003, ISBN 0375411976, [http://www.questionofhonor.com/prologue.htm Excerpt (prologue)].</ref> {{Please note that this source specifically states that some Poles were invited and thus does not support the claim that all Poles were "excluded"}} <ref name="FT06">Kwan Yuk Pan, [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0d441dfa-ecf1-11d9-9d20-00000e2511c8.html Polish veterans to take pride of place in victory parade], [[Financial Times]], July 5 2005. Last accessed on 31 March 2006.</ref>

No, the lede is fine as it is ... or, was, until you removed sourced text from it with the false edit summary Removed inaccurate unsourced PoV from lede; there's very obviously 3 sources there, one of which you were just recently arguing (and making false statements) about. As has been discussed before the "inaccurate" is just your own POV and OR. Please stop repeatedly violating Wikipedia policies like that. Please do not make false edit summaries.radek (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And just in case you're unaware, per MOS (oh wait, that's the policy you repeatedly keep quoting at others in other contexts), the lede usually does not get inline citations.radek (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you perhaps explain why it is a good idea to have a section in the lede which contradicts both the rest of the article and itself? The lede currently claims that all Poles were excluded ("the exclusion of all Polish servicemen") which contradicts both the body of the article (which clearly states that some Poles were invited and that some participated) and itself (it then goes on to state that some Poles were invited). Would you like us to reach consensus here before we make controversial changes or shall I just add the citation needed tags as outlined above? Varsovian (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you are making reverts with false edit summaries.radek (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could discuss the controversial changes which the new editor wishes to make before they are made? Yes. So why don't you follow your own advice, and discuss things here before making controversial edits with false edit summaries? It's really rich to remove a large chunk of sourced text from the lede, that many editors before thought belonged there, use a false edit summary while doing it, then demand that any further "change" be "discussed" with you afterwards. Return the article to previous status quo, then discuss.radek (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The status quo is the version without the addition to the lede which has all the problems which I have identified above. I note that you have not a word to say about any of those problems and instead focus exclusively on me personally. Could that be because you find it impossible to defend edits which are blatantly self-contradictory and contrary to the sourced info in the article? Perhaps you might attempt to discuss the edits and not the editors? As for your repeated claims that my edit summary was false: could you please be so kind as to point out a source which confirms that the parade is notable for Poles not participating? If you can not produce a source for this unsourced inaccurate PoV, kindly refrain from making your accusations. Varsovian (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you are making reverts with false edit summaries. The text you removed clearly had sources (three of them) in it yet you described your action as Removed inaccurate unsourced PoV from lede. Once you get that out of the way, we can talk about the lede.radek (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Another post from you and still no attempt at all to address any of the problems in the proposed addition to the lede. Instead you focus exclusively on me. How strange that the timestamp on your post suggests that your latest post was made before the one above in which I state precisely how I removed inaccurate unsourced PoV. But despite this very strange happening, this diff shows that your question was answered and you have simply completely ignored the answer to it. Now, let's try talking about the lede and why you want it to be self-contradictory and contradictory to the rest of the article. Varsovian (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why you are making reverts with false edit summaries. You have not explained why you did this, merely once again asserted that the sourced text is unsourced. The question was not answered. I see no point in discussing anything with someone who makes false edit summaries and then refuses to acknowledge that obvious fact. There's 3 sources, there [11], no? If you made a mistake, that's fine, it happens - just restore the relevant sourced text and then we can discuss it.radek (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As stated above (and completely ignored by you), none of those sources state that the parade is notable for the reason claimed by the proposed lede. I note that yet again you have made absolutely no attempt at all to discuss the obvious problems in having a lede which is self-contradictory and contradictory to the rest of the article and again you instead focus on me and accuse me of lying, very WP:CIVIL. Your statement that you see no point discussing is most interesting given that you have made no attempt to discuss anything except me. Are you ever going to make any attempt at all to address the problems in the lede which you edited into the article? Varsovian (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

YOUR interpretation of sources is irrelevant. There were sources. You removed them. You used the word "unsourced" in your edit summary. Your edit summary was false (I don't know whether you were lying or not since I don't know whether this was intentional or a mistake. I'm AGFing above and assuming it was a mistake). I will be happy to discuss the lede with you, once you admit your, mistake, and restore the lede to what it was before you gutted it with a false edit summary.radek (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation of sources: it is the very simple fact that not a single one of those sources says a single word that the parade is notable for the claimed reason. I note that yet again you make absolutely no attempt to discuss the problems with the text that you edited into the lede. But even that there is no way that you could possibly defend the introduction of material which is self-contradictory and contradictory to the rest of the article (and even to what you yourself have written on this page), it is obvious why you discuss only me. Varsovian (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to explain why you made a revert using a false edit summary. There were sources. You removed them. You used the edit summary Removed inaccurate unsourced PoV from lede which is clearly false. I think it is perfectly rational for me to assume that a discussion with a person who uses false edit summaries, and then refuses to acknowledge that obvious fact, is not going to be productive and will lead nowhere, just like this discussion right here. Restore the lead, we can discuss it then.radek (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If all you are going to do is to make personal attacks and refuse to even discuss the problems in the text you edited into the article (or why you inserted text which you know to be wrong), I'm going to have little option other than to report you to the relevant boards. Varsovian (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks. Accusing others of making personal attacks when they have not done so can in fact itself be interpreted as a personal attack. I have indicated my willingness to discuss this with you once you restore the text you removed with a false edit summary. No I don't think the text is wrong except perhaps in a ultra-pedantic kind of way (but then, it's the lede); at worst the word "all" maybe should be removed. Please don't make threats as they are not conducive to a productive discussion.radek (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

[12] with edit summary Please do not delete sourced statements. LOL. There's no source in the text in that diff. And at the same time you're admonishing others not to delete "sourced statements" (sic) which are actually unsourced, you yourself are deleting statements with three sources in them, while claiming they are unsourced. Seriously??? Are you trying to set some kind of record for false edit summaries here?radek (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As stated here, that was a good faith mistake. Kindly do not imply that I am a liar.

Alright so you made a mistake (same one twice). I have not called you or implied that you are liar. Please don't pretend that I did.radek (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As for your repeated accusations that my edit summary was false, I said "inaccurate unsourced PoV":

inaccurate covers the claims that 'all Poles were excluded', ‘only 303 was invited’ and ‘the invitation was extended to no other unit’ and ‘the USSR claimed Poland as part of its sphere of influence;

unsourced are the claims about ‘the parade is notable’, ‘only 303 was invited’ (in fact the proposed version gives a source which says no Poles were invited!), “the fourth largest European ally during WW2” and the bit about western betrayal;

PoV would be the the claims about ‘the parade is notable’ and the bit about western betrayal

Given that I have now explained in detail why my edit summary was appropriate and accurate, will you now:

a) kindly engage in discussion as to why you propose a version with such glaring problems such as it being self-contradictory and contrary to the sourced info in the article;

b)refrain from your constant accusations that I use false edit summaries, I do not appreciate being called a liar, especially not by you. Varsovian (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The text you removed had three sources. You stated it was unsourced. If you had problems with the word 'notable' then that was the word to... not remove, but bring up for discussion on talk page. I am curious though how you know that those claims are unsourced - have you read the entire (not just the prologue) Cloud and Olson source?

I did not call you a liar. Don't pretend that I did. Don't accuse me of having called you a liar.radek (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade source

You are entirely right: there is no source given for that statement. Apologies for my mistake. The source is of course Hansard (and written answers have been discussed at WP:RSN, would you like a link to that?). A link to the source is available on the discussion page for the article. As I'm currently posting from my iPhone, I won't add the source now but will instead do so tomorrow. It's a pity that the available verifiable historical record doesn't support the claim the article currently makes, i.e. that 30% of the pilots is "a few". But sometimes historical record doesn't support the assertions made by secondary sources. Varsovian (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, on this, if primary sources contradict (reliable) secondary sources (which I don't think they do in this case) then we go with secondary sources, that's a no brainer. There's no universal absolute rule that says that primary sources contain only divinely inspired TRUTH in them. In fact, lots of primary sources contain all sorts of nonsense all the time (battles with "millions" of soldiers on each side have occurred quite frequently in history). In fact, an approach to historical research which takes primary sources at face value would be naive indeed. That's why it's the job of the professional historian (NOT the job of Wikipedians, professional or not) to interpret primary sources, cross check them with other primary sources, and analyze them in a proper context. Then take all that analysis, write it down, filter it and publish it in a secondary source. And we may use that. If nothing else it saves us all from the hubris that we are all professional historians here.radek (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This particular primary source is confirmed by none other than General Anders, the man to whom (according to Norman Davies) an invite was sent. Given that our three sources here are two which agree with each other (Hansard and the memoirs of General Anders) and a pair of authors who don't even get right the date on which Britain declared war on Germany (as shown here they think clearly state it was 1 September), I would very much submit that NPoV requires that we give both versions of events: the one which says "a few" and the other which says that 25 of the 145 Polish pilots who took part in the BoB were invited (although we can't say "of the 145" because the sources do not include that number). That is of course if we are actually interested in maintaining NPoV.... Varsovian (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what two acclaimed authors, Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud, "think" is irrelevant (maybe you should write them an email and ax'em directly?) Of course we should strive for NPOV. And the way to ensure that is to rely on reliable secondary sources not our own original research based on primary sources.radek (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

From the link provided above "Sept. 1 – Germany invades Poland. Britain and France declare war on Germany to begin World War II." so it is actually what they explicitly state. As for my own research, I didn't write Hansard and I didn't write the memoirs of General Anders: I just read them. Perhaps you should too. Varsovian (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, explicitly stating would be "Sept. 1 - Britain and France declare war on Germany...". There's a little "dot" there, before the next sentence. I'm not sure why this is so important to you or what it's supposed to prove, but seriously, if you really are concerned that Olson and Cloud "think" that, you should really email them and ask them for a clarification.radek (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's great that you've read Hansard and Anders' memoirs. It's even great that you are willing to engage in original research and interpret these primary sources. It's not that great that you're doing it on Wikipedia, as that's against Wikipedia policy.radek (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't recall ever making the claim that I have not read either Hansard or Anders' memoirs or both. Can you show me where I state this? So while I take your suggestion that I read these primary sources in good faith, perhaps you shouldn't make unfounded assumptions about other editors like that.radek (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And is this the Davies source [13] in which, according to you, Davies states that an invite was sent to Anders?radek (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No. As been pointed out numerous times but utterly ignored, that article is about "Britain's 1945 victory parade". Some editors think that Davies is writing about the 1946 parade but that is clearly their own OR. Varsovian (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So where does Davies state that Anders was invited?radek (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh. And let me quote here another editor that has commented on your edits: Deleted nitpicking aside - source is clearly discussing the 1946 parade [14].radek (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which state that when Davies was writing "Britain's 1945 parade" he was actually writing about the London Victory parade of 1946? Or is this insistence that the source means what you want it to say just a manifestation of OR? Varsovian (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"The parade is also notable "

On this one, it'd probably be best to ask for a third opinion. There's no reliable secondary source which uses the word "notable" explicitly. Yet, the exclusion of Polish troops (in one form or another) is discussed in pretty much every source which treats the parade with anything more than cursory passing.radek (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"There's no reliable secondary source which uses the word "notable", so you want WP to become the first source in history to describe this event as 'notable'. Please read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The full statement would be "The parade is also notable for the exclusion of Polish servicemen; hundreds thousands of whom served in the Polish Armed Forces in the West as one of the largest Allied contingents.".

The inclusion of these weasel words shows the absence of merit in this ‘proposal’. “Exlcusion” means ‘prevent from entering’ or ‘keep out’. Not a single source says anything about how Poles were prevented from entering, no source has anything to say about any Poles even attempting to enter the parade! Why does Radeksz want to avoid saying “not invited”? “hundreds thousands”, how many hundreds? Two. Why doesn’t Radeksz want to use the real number? Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that I omitted the 'all' in the interest of compromise (since apparently some individuals of Polish ethnicity who had technically served within British units marched - not sure how that makes them "Polish servicemen" but nm). Note that there's also no claim to the Polish Armed Forces in the West being 4th or 5th largest or whatever.

Both primary and secondary sources state that Poles took part in the parade. But Radeksz clearly doesn’t worry about what sources actually say. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the secondary sources about the parade which discuss this topic which are already in the article:

• Rudolf Falkowski [15]

A source which specifically states that both eastern and western command Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• PBS Documentary "Behind Closed Doors" [16]

A website which is not “about the parade” (despite Radeksz claim that it is) and has a grand total of three sentences about the parade. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Times Higher Education [17]

A book review which is not “about the parade” (despite Radeksz claim that it is) and has a grand total of one sentence about the parade. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Olson and Cloud "A Question of Honor", book, [18]

A book which is about 303 Squadron (i.e. not “about the parade”, deja vu). Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Olson and Cloud "For Your Freedom and Ours", book

Precisely the same book as above but with the British title. Still not about the parade. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Financial Times article (no free access - so correct me if I'm wrong) [19]

As the free access here shows, this article is also not about the 1946 parade. It also makes a claim which even Radeksz has agreed is incorrect. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Laurence Rees "World War II Behind Closed Doors" [20]

Yet another source which is (as the title shows) not “about the parade”. Still more deja vu. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Guardian [21]

A source which is not “about the parade” and doesn’t even mention the parade of 1946. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Norman Davies, "Rising '44", book

Just look at the title: is it “about the parade”? Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't falsely misrepresent what I said (the way you misrepresent sources and use false edit summaries). I said, quote: every source which treats the parade with anything more than cursory passing.radek (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional secondary sources not yet in the article which also discuss the Polish topic within the context of the parade:

• Peter Stachura, "The Poles in Britain, 1940-2000: from betrayal to assimilation", [22]
• Michael Alfred Peszke, "Poland's Navy" [23] (obviously)
• Anthony James Joes, "Urban guerilla warfare" [24]
• Michael Hope, "Polish deportees in the Soviet Union: origins of post-war settlement in Great Britain" [25]

and undoubtedly many others. Frankly I'm a bit of tired of searching just to prove an obvious fact that the "Polish issue" was notable.

Was the lack of invitation to two hundred thousand Polish soldiers and sailors more notable than the lack of invitation to tens of millions of American, Chinese and Russian soldiers and sailors? And more to the point: do you have any sources regarding that? Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the reference section of the article is filled with various primary source - newspapers and media of the time, government statements - which show that the "Polish issue" was controversial at the time it occurred and hence "notable".

Interesting: you oppose the use of primary sources when they don’t support your point of view but you’re happy to use them at other times. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, try to follow this. Using Primary Sources to establish that something is notable is ok by Wikipedia rules. Using Primary Sources in a haphazard way to push POV in an article is not ok by Wikipedia rules. Establishing that something is notable is a different activity than using primary sources in a haphazard way to push POV in an article. One activity is ok. The other is not. According to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See the difference now?radek (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So I think that saying that the parade was "notable" for this particular issue in the lead or the text of the article is fine, per WP:COMMON, though of course I would also welcome any suggestion at alternative phrasings of the relevant statement.radek (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: Just for clarification, why is the current Political controversy section not sufficient? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Essentially because the lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the article body: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should ... summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." . So in fact, the sentence above belongs in the lede precisely because there is a "Political controversy" section. The request for 3O though is more about the word "notable" in that sentence.radek (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pity that you have not even a single source which says that the parade is notable for that reason. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

'Notable' in the lede depends on what it is notable for. e.g. 'for complete absence of people from Poland' would be technically inaccurate, but 'for political controversy about treatment of Polish troops' would be accurate - with both Winston Churchill plus the chief of the RAF getting publicly hot and bothered about it at the time is a significantly covered political controversy documented by multiple secondary sources. My first thought is that a couple of well-written sentences in the lede at most should suffice to introduce this, as per WP:LEAD which says "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". The controversy needn't dominate the lede. Either way WP:CONSENSUS is the decider. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting but the simple fact is that we have not a single source which states that the parade is notable because of the lack of Polish participation. Winston Churchill was the leader of the opposition when speaking so his allegations regarding Polish participation (which were specifically denied by HMG at the time) are purely PPOV. The coverage of the views of the chief of the RAF state "he insisted, against Soviet objections, that Polish aircrew be allowed to march, in uniform, in the Victory parade in London." (emphasis added). I've just read the lede of the article on the Holocaust and can't see even a word about holocaust denial in that, is it not an notable controversy? Or is it just that to the two sentences in this lede we should add " a couple of well-written sentences" about a couple of hundred thousand Poles (of whom 89,300 had formerly been in the German armed forces and so might not have been well received by the crowds) and tens of millions of Americans, Russians and Chinese not being invited? Varsovian (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see what's going on here. The problem is in saying "The parade is notable for its exclusion..." To put text like that in the article is at the very least awkward, and at the most inappropriate. It's clear from the text in the article that the exclusion of the Polish forces caused controversy; stating that it's notable for that isn't necessarily true. I think it's a violation of WP:SYN to say, "Well, all these sources mention how the parade excluded these people, so it must be notable for that". Normally you see people claiming notability in Wiki articles where the notability of the subject is in question, and the article might be deleted. I don't see that happening here; it's pretty clear that this article isn't going anywhere. I think the text that Chumchum added (and I just cleaned up a bit) suffices and fulfills WP:LEAD. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this matter. However, Polish troops were not treated in any way at all in the parade (just as American troops were not). The controversy was not about the exclusion of any forces (nobody was excluded), it was about which Polish service personnel should be invited. All the sources agree that some Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Chumchum's additions as well and I don't see a need to insist on the word "notable". I do think that the lede should summarize the contents of the article and that such information should not be arbitrarily removed. However, you can already see from Varsovian's comment above why this is going to continue to be a problem - he insists on fighting over every single word and formulation. Having lost his attempt to try to keep the mentioning of the Poles from the lede he has already begun an argument on whether "treatment" is the appropriate word. This is, and has been for a long time, a clear violation of WP:TE (in addition to pretty much every other content related policy, and some of the behavioral ones as well). Frankly this kind of behavior just wastes everybody's time.radek (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

McNeil quote

I've moved the McNeil quote to Wikiquote here where it properly belongs rather than in a Wikipedia article where long quotes are generally discouraged (leaving aside the fact of how the quote is used) (and the fact that it was mis-formatted and may be full of spelling errors. I assume the month that begins with "Deb" is December.)radek (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 1R/week article level restriction (WP:DIGWUREN)

Some weeks ago, I took note of the problems caused by disputes about this article as a result of a message on my talk page. Because the dispute has not abated and seems to have been going on for a long time, I've imposed the restriction seen in the edit notice, Template:Editnotices/Page/London Victory Parade of 1946, and at the top of this talk page. I hope that this will help editors to settle their differences on the talk page rather than through slow-motion edit warring. For the sake of clarity, the revert counter starts at zero for all editors as of the time the restriction was imposed.  Sandstein  18:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)