Talk:Soviet partisans in Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV[edit]

The article is reference with only Polish sources and is very one sided. The POV tag should remain until the Soviet perspective is mentioned as well. Fisenko 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I hope you don't mean that we should you Soviet-era sources for that. Having said this, if you can show us neutral sources - English (and note this article uses quite a few of them, not only Polish) or barring that even modern Russian - to prove that it is POVed, then please relist the tag. So far your only accusation against this article is that it uses Polish sources, this is not acceptable to declare tha article POVed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is clearly written from Polish perspective only. How can it be not POV ? Fisenko 04:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I could add more, but this has to wait a month. --Molobo 10:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is one link to reference that gives contrary evidence : http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/medvedev/08.html Fisenko 15:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Used babelfish. Appears to be a Soviet propaganda piece without mentioning anything about Poles or Poland. It also contradicts witness statements about the reception of Soviet partisans by Polish people who were robbed and terrorised by them. --Molobo 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You can label anything as propaganda. The fact is every single source used in this article gives only Polish perspective on the matter, and this is clearly POV. PS Here are few English-language sites what give a different perspective on the matter: http://jewishpartisans.org/ http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/people/resister.htm http://www1.yadvashem.org.il/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205704.pdf Fisenko 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Do they write about Koniuchy Massacre ? --Molobo 20:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

So please enlighten us what facts in the article are disputed, or what new facts from those references should be included. Currently your only argument is that this article has a Polish POV due to the use of Polish sources. While it is possible, you fail to present any alternative.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


New facts from those references should be included ? Here you go, for example this:

"Armia Krajowa (AK) - Polish words for Home Army. A nationalist partisan group that fought the Nazis. They intentionally hunted down and killed Jewish partisans because of their fierce antisemitic beliefs." [1] Fisenko 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so we can strike out one of your sources already as not credible. --Molobo 21:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not credible, because its not pro-AK. ? Fisenko 21:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Molobo, Fisenko is a well respected editor who contributed much to Wikipedia, aprticularly to the Partisan topics. Explanation is provided and discussion is developing. I can equally say that all sources in the article are not credible. And when I add sourced info on AK's cooperation with Nazis against the Soviet partisans (Piotrowski) the article would be more balanced. In any case, the sources here are unevaluated, one sided and the disagreement is a good faith. It's totally disgusting to attempt to prevail in honest edit conflicts by tryiong to get your opponent blocked. --Irpen 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really Irpen, adding a lot of Soviet propaganda doesn't equal good contributions. --Molobo 21:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the sources here are unevaluated, one sided Nope. The sources here are objective, clear, informative. And their greatest asset is that they are made by credible historians and not Soviet apologists or propaganda writers. I suggest that such information be reserved to Propaganda articles where it belongs. Perhaps we could make a vote about this in the future :) --Molobo 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Piotrowski = Soviet Propaganda? [2] [3] [4] Good shot, Molobo. But you missed with that one. Read the book for more. --Irpen 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen. I never mentioned Piotrowski. Why do you claim he is a Soviet Propaganda. Read the book for more Sure but right now I am reading right now about the procedures made by Soviet partisans in regards to making ambushes and murdering Polish partisans. --Molobo 21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, we are not discussing Fisenko or Molobo's integrity here. However the article is using academic sources, and the best Fisenko has provided are some non-academic websites. The above slander against AK is both unverifiable (the site is non-academic and quotes no sources) and completly OT here, just as are Piotrowski's comments about the rare events AK cooperated with Nazis (this article is not about AK, if any of you are under the mistaken impression it may be). If this is Fisenko's best shot at what kind of information are missing from this article, I am afraid this only merits that we have to look over his 'contributions' to Wikipedia to see what other (good faithed, I am sure) errors we should correct. I repeat: the article uses English and Polish academic references and you have failed to provide a single academic reference to contradict any of the facts used in the article, or that would indicate we are missing any on topic facts to it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't take part in this discussion, so treat my comment as a side note. That's exactly what I thought Irpen's intention was when he deleted this particular section from the main article and moved it elsewhere. At first the section was removed to let the main article represent only the Soviet POV and then it was copied here, where it's content could be freely deleted or, at the very least, marginalized. However, before Fisenko or Irpen start a POV dispute about this particular article, they should IMO try to read it as it was written by yours truly: that is a part on Polish perspective added to an entirely Soviet-oriented article. In the effect, we have a POV article there and an article here that was meant to be a part of NPOVing effort of the other one. //Halibutt 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet partisans article in its current form is far from being "entirely Soviet-oriented article", but rather the opposite. The article also has a POV tag introduced by Polish wiki-editors. Therefore, it is only logical that this article (which is even less neutral) should have a POV tag as well. Fisenko 00:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Academic refrences with a different perspective on the topic:[edit]

1). Armstrong, John Alexander. Soviet partisans in World War II. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press, 1964.

2). Азясский Н. Ф., Долгий М. С., Князьков А. С, Пережогин В. А., Чернов Ю. И. Партизанское движение. По опыту Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг. Кучково поле, 2001 г. ISBN 5-901679-03-2

3). История Украинской ССР в десяти томах. Редакционная коллегия: Ю.Ю.Кондуфор, И.И,Артёменко, Б.М.Бабий и др. Том 8. Украинская ССР в Великой Отечественной войне Совет¬ского Союза ( 1941 - 1945). Киев, «Наукова Думка», 1984.

Fisenko 00:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


A lot of research was suppressed druing cold war and certain information was only availabe giving us the full picture after 1989. In regards to Soviets I would prefer sources from 90s after Soviet occupied countries were liberated. And I am afraid I nor several editors are able to read Russian. --Molobo 00:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fisenko, putting aside the fact that the third of those is a Soviet publications, and two of them are non-English, what do they say that contradicts information in our current article? Babelfish translates the titles of the Russian publications you mentions as 'partisan motion. According to the experience of World War II 1941-1945 ' and 'History of Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes'. What is their relevance to this article? Oh, I am happy to see you have taken to heart my comment about importance of references, where I recommended the very Armstrong book you mention :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please note that almost all facts in this article can be verified with the English online references, and I am still waiting to hear a single on-topic fact that you think is wrong or missing from this article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Then start from purging Polish sources first. As for occupation till '89, this nonsense is neither new here nor original. --Irpen 00:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but all of them were published after 1989. //Halibutt 00:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So? Are they less likely to be influenced by the Polish nationalist POV then? --Irpen 01:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, for the n-th time let me ask you or Fisenko to give any specific example of this presumed Polish POV. So far you have done nothing but questioned the article because it uses some Polish references; this is not a valid reason for questioning the sources. And just to clarify one issue, out of nine inline citations in the article only two are not English online references, and both of the two remaining are online and can be translated into English using MT (unlike the hard to verify, offline 'references' Fisenko posted above).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is online English-language account about Soviet partisans who operated around Nowogródek which is rather different from the information written in this article. [5]. It is from book by - Nechama Tec. Defiance: The Bielski Partisans. Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-19-507595-1 Fisenko 01:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I added it to The Bielski Brothers (which you may want to read, as they are not as clear cut as heroes as you may assume). If you are trying to make a point that information about Bielski's group should be added here, I am not sure they are that relevant. It is true that they operated in the Nowogrodek area (now Belarus, but then part of the SPR). However I don't see how activities of Bielski, who after all is not a clear-cut example of a Soviet partisant but more of a Jewish resistance fighter are relavant to this article, are an issue in making this article POVed (you may argue it is a comprehensivity issue, but I see no POV issue here). Anyway I added the BB as see also and I am still waiting to see a single argument about the POV tag other then your suspicions about Polish sources (and presumably, Polish wikipedians).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


Piotrus, I link the book with refs about AK's cooperating with Nazis against the Soviet partisans above a while ago and to several articles' talks. So far no one showed the interest to include the info into any article. I plan to do that myself but I really plan to many things at once. However, this article is so grossly POV that the POV tag is certainly warranted as well as explained. The second from bottom paragraph (did you actually read it?) is a masterpiece in itself. Good luck NPOVing it before I set aside time for this topic. I plan first to clean Soviet partisans main-article from a recent assault as well as replaced the Rudnev's article which currently reads as an unrefed conspirasy theory not worthy of Wikipedia. At due time I will get to this one but perhaps you or Halibutt or Fisenko could start reworking this (as well as the title for obvious reasons) in the meanwhile. In the current state the article is a plain POV piece and the tag should stay. I am saddened that you resorted to attemtping to have your opponent blocked. Do you really not see that the article is just totally unacceptable? --Irpen 01:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, I feel like I am talking to myself. Instead of providing a single - even one, tiny, little - specific example of how this article is POVed you bring out (again...) unrelated issues (is this supposed to be a kind of a threat? By all means, please go work on AK article, if you have reliable references for that we will all be happy to see it expanded). I read the second para of this article, it seems ok to me, but you can be bold and correct it yourself or be more specific and tell us here what is so POVed. As for Fisenko, even through he has broken 3RR I have not reported him to the 3RR incidents board, but I have just asked a fellow admin to warn him, despite your accusations that I 'attempted to have him blocked'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I was talking about second from bottom paragraph. Also, AK's collaboration with Nazi against the Soviet partisans isn't an unrelated issue to the Soviet partisans topic, especially since the article discusses the relationship between the two forces.

You were not making any favors to Fisenko by "not reporting" him. Not a single time to this day I reported yourself or Halibutt over many article conflicts even though 3RR violations did occur. There must be a common sense in dealing with this. And I have no intention to do this in the future until the day the good faith editing disagreement gets reported by any of the old bedfellow. And asking a fellow admin to issue a warning in place of 3RR reporting is a court shopping. Warning is the first (and almost a required) step towards first 3RR block. One troll even managed to get myself warned this way (warning later retracted) when there was not even 4 edits in the same 24 hours by myself (let alone reverts). You can warn anyone (even not being an admin) just as well if you think the 3RR warning is in order.

Anyway, this is a side issue. The article is simply unacceptable. If you think it is still not explained why, I will try my best (or perhaps Fisenko can) to give more explanation. I hope you read it in its entirety at least once. It is rather short, so should not take long. --Irpen 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't track Halibutt's edits, but you are welcome to tell me where I have broken 3RR in 'many articles'. Again, this is OT here. I am still waiting for a single fact from a single reference that would indicate this article is POVed. If you have a reference that clearly states something contrary to what is in this article, or contain imporant piece of information missing from it, I ask you to list the reference and the fact here. Your theory about AK conenction to the Nazi is is already mentioned in the article, as Chodawkiewicz cleary states in his online article, it was an excuse used by Soviet propaganda to justify actions against AK (of course, every good lie has a grain of truth in it and so there might have been a (very, very few) cases where AK collaborated with the Nazis, especially after Soviets started murdering AK commanders in the aftermath of the Operation Tempest) Btw, note that Piotrowicz gives the earliest date for such a collaboration as Dec'43. Chodakiewicz mentions that Soviet partisants started attacking Polish partisants in 42. He makes it clear that it was the Soviets who initiated attacks on the Poles. Surely you don't fault Poles for defending themselves? Not to mention that the Soviets haven't earned many friends during their occupation of Poland after '39 (Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers). Since this is already addressed in the article, I ask you to clarify what is it that you find POVed. The 'second from the bottom' paragraph is composed entirely from the information provided by Chodakiewicz in his article, if you have any problems with it may I recommend you take it with professor Marek Jan Chodakiewicz?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read the links I posted above to Piotrowski's book? It's just three pages. I am not saying the second from bottom para is unreferenced. I am saying it is POVed and unencyclopedic. Or you see it OK to include sarcastic remarks in articles like our friend Halibutt wrote: "the Soviet could claim a significant victory: most large landed estates, owned by the Poles, had been destroyed by the Soviet partisans. Now, the entire issue is on the wrong foot. The Soviet were acting not in Poland, but in Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia as the matters stood at the time of the day. And as far as Ukraine and Belarus is concerned, the majority of its population had very little sympathy to Poland whatever view towards the Soviets they had. As such, Polish forces there hardly represented the population. There were native forces, like UPA or Forrest brothers. The article speaks exclusively in term of Polish resistance. That's a gross POV as well as it's title. So, additionally {{POV-title}} is in order. --Irpen 03:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Indeed, the sentence as it was constructed could have been seen as a sarcastic remark, I have now corrected it. The para should now be completly NPOV and encyclopedic. I don't see what you are trying to argue for in the your second part of the argument. We are speaking about Soviet partisants operating in the Kresy territories, formerly part of the Second Polish Republic, annexed by Soviet Union after their alliance with Nazis (M-R Pact) i.e. the territory which had a Polish population (minority or majority depending on particular region).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

---"The Soviets seldom attacked German military and police targets. They preferred to assault the poorly armed and trained Belarusan and Polish self-defense forces." This particular statement is a very obvious POV. PS: Bielski group was a Soviet partisan group under the direct command of "Moscow parisan HQ/NKVD". Fisenko 06:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As well as consealment of AK-Nazi cooperation against the Soviet partisans in Navahrudak and Vilnius areas well documented by the AK members' statements: [6] [7] [8]. Source: "Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the SPR" by Tadeusz Piotrowski, ISBN 0786403713.

In view of this as well as other listed objections, I think the factual accuracy tag must be added as well. And, in view of the debate about the appropriateness of the title, the {{POV-title}} tag is warranted too. I would like to say it here in advance, in order to not see tags reverted and their restoration reported as edit warring. I hope we can start addressing the article's problems.

Halibutt, please note that I spun off this article not because I wanted to suppress (or encourage) its content. In the context of the general SP article, the topic belongs to the sections of the specific Soviet republics where it is covered. Such coverage needs improvement but should not be duplicated in the artificial section. The view that partisan's action are worthy to be studied from this particular angle (former Poland) is admissable, however, and there is nothing wrong with having a separate article. However, having such article problem-free is a separate issue that should be our common priority. --Irpen 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As well as consealment of AK-Nazi cooperation against the Soviet partisans in Navahrudak and Vilnius areas well documented by the AK members' statements
I am sorry but It seems you have made some mistake, there is nothing about any cooperation between AK and Nazi's but about Nazi attempts to achieve cooperation.

--Molobo 09:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, we have read the Piotrowski's book references you provided, and I have already replied to that above: those concerns are addressed in the article. I don't support the current tag, and certainly not any other tags you propose, as you still fail to provide proof that the article is POVed. Fisenko is citing the paragraph which uses wording mostly from the academic article by Chodakiewicz, you are free to reword it so it is less POVed if you think it is the problem, but the facts are well sourced. PS. The Bielski article certainly needs expantion; they did collaborate with the Soviets, but please note that: "At the end of the war, with Stalin's control of Belorussia becoming more oppressive, Tuvia and his brothers escaped to Romania, traveling on to Palestine and then the US." It seems rather strange for the loyal Soviet partisants to escape from tender Stalin's embrace, although when one considers the treatment of Jews by the Soviets, as described by Chodakiewicz, we can see a possible answer ("The young and armed Jews were usually welcomed by the Soviets. Women, children, and the elderly were abandoned at best and victimized at worst. There were even instances when Jews were killed by the Soviet partisans"; "The Jewish partisans had a difficult time. Even within the Soviet partisan units they had to contend with “hatred of Jews”").--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for RfC about this issue, hopefully more editors will give valuable comments. In the meantime I'd like to quote from WP:RS: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question. We are still waiting for evidence that this article is POVed (issues of Piotrowicz, Bielski's and the 'sarcastic sentence' have alraedy been addresed). If there is no further evidence of this article being POVed I'd assume there is a consensus that that POV-tag is no longer needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Irpen, but your explanation does not hold the water. The Soviet POV is that the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was legitimate even after Soviet Union itself declared it null and void. The point of view of pretty everyone else (including the international law) is that those areas were not annexed by the Soviets until 1945, when they were officially ceded by the Soviet agents in Poland to their overlords. Yet, you modified that article to represent the bizarre Soviet POV and deleted or moved out all mentions of the fact that the Soviet version is based on pure propaganda and has little to do with international agreements. If the topic belongs to the sections of the specific Soviet republics where it is covered, then why not mention there also the Home Army and other non-Soviet partisan units operating in what was dubbed by the Soviets and their Nazi friends the Western Belarus and Western Ukraine? Also, why not copy there all the articles in Wikipedia? For instance I could claim that the entire history of Kiev could belong to the chapter on Kijów Voivodship. Why not? //Halibutt 18:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Totallydisputed[edit]

This article when left to Molobo's and Halibutt's own devices became just the place where this two grind their axe left and right.

  1. First, the explanation of the article's topic, is inapropriate. You can't try to make a History of the WW2 from the narrow POV out of such explanation.
  2. "The partisans were despised by local population, as they engaged in plunder and terrorised the locals" is another Halibutt/Molobo-style phrase (not sure who of those two wrote it and referred to some strange source.
  3. In writing about standoff with AK, the article completely ommitts the collaboration of the latter with the Nazis against the Soviet partisans. The references were brought up at several other talk pages.
  4. Further, instead of describing the partisan's activity, the article instead focuses on the Soviet propaganda.
  5. Also, about half-the article refs point to some very partisan review of some book, even not to a book itslef.

I invite the article's writers, to start getting serious. --Irpen 04:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is well referenced. All material brought on talk has been either added to the article or judged as irrelevant. Please feel free to expand the article, but your POV, not backed by any refs, is not enough to tag this article as a disputed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus, I expressed clearly what's wrong in how the article is frivolously built around cherry picked partisan sources and went further pointing out its deficiencies. I don't expect my tags removed with dismissive statements at least unless this is done by the two fellows named above. --Irpen 06:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In writing about standoff with AK, the article completely ommitts the collaboration of the latter with the Nazis against the Soviet partisans. The references were brought up at several other talk pages. Not really I haven't seen yet one confirming any cooperation. I think you read too much Soviet propaganda. They might have been isolated cases of local low level commanders but no cooperation to speak of on behalf of the movement. --Molobo 07:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. The explanation of article's topic was, as far as I remember, written by you personally when you decided to conceal the facts that didn't fit your POV from the main article and migrate them somewhere. The chaper I wrote had no header at all as chapters do not have headers. So don't blame me for your own mistakes please.
  2. Could be nice if you added some diffs and links to your slander.
  3. The article on Soviet partisans does not mention their collaboration with the Germans in extermination of the locals either. And..?
  4. As far as I remember the original chapter I wrote was devoted mostly to their (in)activity. No doubt someone must've had some problem with that...
  5. Any details? Is there anything in particular you'd like to comment on or is it just the normal criticising of sources you don't like? //Halibutt 16:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see merit in Irpen arguments that the Polish-German cooperation is relevant to this article, as it was caused, after all, by the Soviets (enemy of my enemy...). I have now expanded the article using the reference he provided, I hope this addresses all the comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant quote[edit]

The issue of AK's collaboration with nazis was brought up here because they were collaborating specifically against the Soviet partisans. The quote Piotrus brings here has no relation to this collaboration. The researcher claims that AK as a whole is largely untainted with collaboration in the Holocaust events in Poland. What does it have to do with its being complicit or not in collaboration against Soviet partisans? --Irpen 01:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the big picture. Collaboration in the Holocaust is part of the argument about collaboration with the Nazis; thus the above quite is relevant if we are talking about Polish partisans alleged collaboration with Nazis against the Soviets.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Booshank comment[edit]

This article seems very one sided, everything seems to be viewed through the filter of Polish nationalism, anti-Sovietism and Polish victimhood. This topic seems a prime example of one that can easily be distorted by the prism of events that took place before and after. While I can certainly believe a significant section of the civilian population might have been hostile to the Soviet partisans, I find it hard to believe that there was an overwhelming opposition to them. It would seem almost inconceivable that the Soviet partisans could have continued to operate effectively far behind the front line against such a powerful and ruthless opponent as the German army without significant (if not overwhelming) civilian support. Booshank 02:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See Soviet partisans for information on many succesfull ops of SP in areas they had much support. Further, please note that Kresy territories did have sigificant non-Polish population, and I'd expect this is where many of SP got their support from. Lastly, we discussed sources above, the facts in those articles are well-referenced using many English language and online academic sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Soviet ethnic war" against Poles???[edit]

By the end of 1943, the Soviets could claim a significant victory in their war aganst the ethnic Poles: most large landed estates owned by the Poles had been destroyed by the Soviet partisans.

Please give evidence that there was such an "ethnic war" by the Soviets.--Shakura 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I agree the term 'ethnic' here is not most appopriate (and uncited). Barring refs to the contrary I'd support removal of that word.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Language[edit]

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

Naliboki massacre[edit]

Should be mentioned.Xx236 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Stalin Brigade. --HanzoHattori 15:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you could both created stubs/redirects to those terms I just ilinked?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

in Eastern Poland[edit]

I believe that Soviet partisans in Eastern Poland bettern explains the contains. The article doesn't discuss Soviet activities in contemporary Poland.Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By contemporary you mean, I assume, geographically. It is true that Soviet partisans did not operate in central/western Poland (i.e. territories not occupied by the Soviets in 1939), that said - do we need a longer title? I like to stick to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PPR, GL and AL may be considered Soviet partizans. They were directly controlled by Soviet authorities.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Soviet is Soviet - Polish, Russian or Ukrainian. IPN In Eastern Poland all network was passed from the GL to Soviet partizans in 1943. Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Assessment[edit]

I had a hard time trying to assess this. I couldn't quite work out why I didn't think it was B-Class. To be honest, I think it is because I don't come away from the article understanding what the partisans were about and what the structure of their forces was. The article needs something of a restructuring in my opinion. We need a longer lead, then we need a section on the partisans, what they were about, an expansion on why they were fighting. Then we need any information on structure, how were they organised within Poland. Then we could move onto operations, actions they were involved in (I notice that the third paragraph from Soviet_partisans#Poland is not included here. When it is included, it seems to be apologetic in tone. I also think the relations section needs to be expanded and made more neutral. So, I am uneasy about making this B class, I will leave it open for assessment by other editors. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just assessed this as Start. I'll explain my thinking on the criteria it failed on.
B1 - I'm uncomfortable about articles which are rely heavily on non-English sources without complying with WP:RSUE.
B2 - I share Woody's concerns about comprehensiveness.
B3 - I also share Woody' concerns about structure.
B5 - I passed it on graphic content, though it really needs a photograph or two to illustrate the text.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 06:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The article only uses 3 Polish language refs on 4 occasions, and two of those are backed up by English sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I reckoned about a third of the refs were in Polish. Perhaps it would clearer if this was split into Notes and References? I'm thinking of trying to get WP:RSUE modified. Its terms are onerous at the moment. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
True, but content wise, almost all of the information comes from online English sources. Out of curiosity, where could I read your proposal for changing RSUE? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
How does one write an article about Soviet partisans without using one Soviet or even Russian source and still calls it unbiased?! I would slap an AfD on it if I knew it would get deleted. I would not bother rating it a stub--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that isn't helpful. A simple, "it doesn't utilise all sources available" would suffice. It is clearly not a stub. Woody (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and constructive comments about how the article does not represent a worldwide view, or showing how the article isn't neutral. Which areas specifically concern you? Don't simply say it doesn't use Russian sources. Show your problems with links to the article; the viewpoints could still be covered without using "russian sources". Woody (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I care to pick my participation in anything Piotrus edits very carefully because I have seen his "style" on more then one occasion. I'll come back to this, and his other "contributions" when I'm ready. Meanwhile he can rack up edit counter by promoting Poland's never ending crying fowl over the Second World War--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Soviet partisans in Poland?[edit]

This entire article does not make sense. Poland did not exist as a state after 1939, so Soviet Partisans could not have operated on its territory. In any case, the territory annexed by Soviet Union was also not Poland any more, so they were not operating on Polish territory any way one looks at it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Poland did exist as a state after 1939 (there was Polish government in exile and the Polish Underground State). The fact that Soviets and Nazis occupied only meant that indeed their forces operated on occupied Polish territory. It's as simple as that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

B-class[edit]

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