![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The article is clearly written from Polish perspective only. How can it be not POV ? Fisenko 04:44, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So? Are they less likely to be influenced by the Polish nationalist POV then? -- Irpen 01:02, 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)
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)
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)
---"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)
-- Molobo 09:37, 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)
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.
I invite the article's writers, to start getting serious. -- Irpen 04:48, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Should be mentioned. Xx236 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
PPR, GL and AL may be considered Soviet partizans. They were directly controlled by Soviet authorities. Xx236 ( talk) 08:21, 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)
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)
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)
Confirmed for WP:POLAND per milhist review. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "book review by a non-expert is not a suitable source; see: Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist)#Citation to Judith Olsak-Glass, Sarmatian Review." -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The article is clearly written from Polish perspective only. How can it be not POV ? Fisenko 04:44, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So? Are they less likely to be influenced by the Polish nationalist POV then? -- Irpen 01:02, 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)
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)
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)
---"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)
-- Molobo 09:37, 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)
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.
I invite the article's writers, to start getting serious. -- Irpen 04:48, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Should be mentioned. Xx236 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
PPR, GL and AL may be considered Soviet partizans. They were directly controlled by Soviet authorities. Xx236 ( talk) 08:21, 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)
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)
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)
Confirmed for WP:POLAND per milhist review. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "book review by a non-expert is not a suitable source; see: Talk:Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist)#Citation to Judith Olsak-Glass, Sarmatian Review." -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)