![]() | A fact from Union of Active Struggle appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 June 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Związek Walki Czynnej from pl.wikipedia. Translated on 18 June 2006. |
Violence is by far a broader term then terrorism. The controversy of the old regime cooperating with someone who resorted to terrorism is hidden when the term terrorism is replaced by a broader "violence". Street demonstrations with clashes against the Police force are also "violence". Political assassinations, armed robberies and going to Japan with an offer to start and coordinate the sabotage terror campaign is much narrower than broad violence. Please don't weaselize the terms and justify "liberating" in the text by a wide range of mainstream sources that use the term in such context. -- Irpen 05:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Irpen continues his highly biased edits, disregarding all historic references. Austrian rule was quite beneficial to Poles in later half of XIX century, instead though we have the usual Irpen style manipulative wording of "historic enemy". Quite biased considering the fact that Austria was essentially forced by Russia to partition Poland, and contributed to development of Polish culture and political movements by granting freedoms. Not to mention the prime minister of Austria was a Pole in years 1895-1897. As to "terrorism"-I think we don't need to deal with that particular opinion of Polish resistance to occupation by Russia by Irpen. -- Molobo 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
also relative "liberalism" of Austria is irrelevant here, it was as much against PL statehood as others) Already in 1854 ideas floated in Austria on restoring Poland together with Poland by merging Galicia with Russian occupied Poland. May I guess this are the reasons for your biased an unhistoric take on Austrian-Polish relations ? If there was a historic enemy to Polish statehood it wasn't Austria, I will let you do a historic research which country despised Poland the most out of three partitioning powers Irpen... -- Molobo 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the trolling. Robbing banks while no doubt banditism isn't terrorism, assasinating politicians isn't terrorism (in fact they may be classified as legitimate military targets, and coordinating against a common enemy is not terrorism. I've never heard about any acts of violance carried out against the Russian population by PPS and doing so in an attempt to influance Russian rulers would be completely fuitile. It is crystal clear that person either knows nothing about the subject or is actually deliberately trolling. I'm afraid that from looking at other edits I have to conclude it's the later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.28.144 ( talk • contribs)
I think that the fact that the alliance was made with the most freedom giving power like Austria which granted Poles freedoms not comperable to harsh discrimination found in Prussia or Russian Empire is notable. We should mention and reference this. As to "historical enemy", the term brought by Irpen...Well since he brought it up in the article, we can let it stay but reference it to the proper country rather then to Austria. -- Molobo 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In regards to latest Irpen's edit which inserted the word "subversion" According to Wiki :subversion something much more surreptitious, such as eroding the basis of belief in the status quo or setting people against each other. Yes I am quite sure that the there was need to erode the basis of status quo or set Poles against Russian Empire ;) But seriously it has no place here, the Russian Empire engaged in ethnic cleansing of Polish population by deporting whole Polish noble families from their lands into Russian interior, banned Polish language, its soldiers engaged in mass murder of thousands of Polish civilians. Subversion was hardly needed for Polish population to oppose the Russian rule and the terror it brought to daily life in occupied Poland. However I doubt Irpen will take any effort to neutralise his edits, I just hope the next step won't be adding "treason" as an act attributed to Poles who wanted to free themselfs from Russian yoke.-- Molobo 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong Irpen. The Japanese didn't turn him down.They didn't want to get involved fully into national liberation of people so far away and all of his proposals weren't realised, but they did provide funds for the struggling movement aimed against common enemy. -- Molobo 01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I worked it through babelfish and it gave a well structured translation. Unfortunetely it seems the article is highly sensationalistic ("Joseph Stalin the namesake of Pilsudski" is just one example) but completely out of touch with realities of Polish politics in regards to Russia and Austria, with particular ignorance towards the Austrian issue. It writes for example How could this patriot, as Pilsudskiy, to collaborate with the historical enemies of his country, which is completely absurd considering that Austria wanted to restore Poland and since 60s granted Poles autonomy, and Poles declared their allegience to Austrian Emperor, who himself posed in Polish national clothing. Due this unreliability it can hardly be seen as neutral or usefull source in regards to issues of Polish and Austrian relations.All in all however an interesting article on Ukrainian view of the events. -- Molobo 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
An editor has proposed moving Association of Armed Struggle here. However these two organizations are different. So, what to do? Please comment at Talk:Association of Armed Struggle#Requested move.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The article (Polish: Związek Walki Czynnej) was just moved from "Union for Armed Struggle" to "Association for Active Combat". AAC doesn't seem to be used in English: [2]; UAC is: [3]. Same holds true if we replace for with of ( [4], [5]. I am thus reverting the move due to WP:NC - we should use existing names if possible, not invent better translations (personally I don't see much difference between those two).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, some more searching:
Based on the above, I think that the 1939 organization should be moved to "Union of Armed Struggle", and the 1908, to "Union of Active Struggle", unless we want to move them to Polish original names? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Union of Active Struggle appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 22 June 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Związek Walki Czynnej from pl.wikipedia. Translated on 18 June 2006. |
Violence is by far a broader term then terrorism. The controversy of the old regime cooperating with someone who resorted to terrorism is hidden when the term terrorism is replaced by a broader "violence". Street demonstrations with clashes against the Police force are also "violence". Political assassinations, armed robberies and going to Japan with an offer to start and coordinate the sabotage terror campaign is much narrower than broad violence. Please don't weaselize the terms and justify "liberating" in the text by a wide range of mainstream sources that use the term in such context. -- Irpen 05:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Irpen continues his highly biased edits, disregarding all historic references. Austrian rule was quite beneficial to Poles in later half of XIX century, instead though we have the usual Irpen style manipulative wording of "historic enemy". Quite biased considering the fact that Austria was essentially forced by Russia to partition Poland, and contributed to development of Polish culture and political movements by granting freedoms. Not to mention the prime minister of Austria was a Pole in years 1895-1897. As to "terrorism"-I think we don't need to deal with that particular opinion of Polish resistance to occupation by Russia by Irpen. -- Molobo 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
also relative "liberalism" of Austria is irrelevant here, it was as much against PL statehood as others) Already in 1854 ideas floated in Austria on restoring Poland together with Poland by merging Galicia with Russian occupied Poland. May I guess this are the reasons for your biased an unhistoric take on Austrian-Polish relations ? If there was a historic enemy to Polish statehood it wasn't Austria, I will let you do a historic research which country despised Poland the most out of three partitioning powers Irpen... -- Molobo 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the trolling. Robbing banks while no doubt banditism isn't terrorism, assasinating politicians isn't terrorism (in fact they may be classified as legitimate military targets, and coordinating against a common enemy is not terrorism. I've never heard about any acts of violance carried out against the Russian population by PPS and doing so in an attempt to influance Russian rulers would be completely fuitile. It is crystal clear that person either knows nothing about the subject or is actually deliberately trolling. I'm afraid that from looking at other edits I have to conclude it's the later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.28.144 ( talk • contribs)
I think that the fact that the alliance was made with the most freedom giving power like Austria which granted Poles freedoms not comperable to harsh discrimination found in Prussia or Russian Empire is notable. We should mention and reference this. As to "historical enemy", the term brought by Irpen...Well since he brought it up in the article, we can let it stay but reference it to the proper country rather then to Austria. -- Molobo 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In regards to latest Irpen's edit which inserted the word "subversion" According to Wiki :subversion something much more surreptitious, such as eroding the basis of belief in the status quo or setting people against each other. Yes I am quite sure that the there was need to erode the basis of status quo or set Poles against Russian Empire ;) But seriously it has no place here, the Russian Empire engaged in ethnic cleansing of Polish population by deporting whole Polish noble families from their lands into Russian interior, banned Polish language, its soldiers engaged in mass murder of thousands of Polish civilians. Subversion was hardly needed for Polish population to oppose the Russian rule and the terror it brought to daily life in occupied Poland. However I doubt Irpen will take any effort to neutralise his edits, I just hope the next step won't be adding "treason" as an act attributed to Poles who wanted to free themselfs from Russian yoke.-- Molobo 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong Irpen. The Japanese didn't turn him down.They didn't want to get involved fully into national liberation of people so far away and all of his proposals weren't realised, but they did provide funds for the struggling movement aimed against common enemy. -- Molobo 01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I worked it through babelfish and it gave a well structured translation. Unfortunetely it seems the article is highly sensationalistic ("Joseph Stalin the namesake of Pilsudski" is just one example) but completely out of touch with realities of Polish politics in regards to Russia and Austria, with particular ignorance towards the Austrian issue. It writes for example How could this patriot, as Pilsudskiy, to collaborate with the historical enemies of his country, which is completely absurd considering that Austria wanted to restore Poland and since 60s granted Poles autonomy, and Poles declared their allegience to Austrian Emperor, who himself posed in Polish national clothing. Due this unreliability it can hardly be seen as neutral or usefull source in regards to issues of Polish and Austrian relations.All in all however an interesting article on Ukrainian view of the events. -- Molobo 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
An editor has proposed moving Association of Armed Struggle here. However these two organizations are different. So, what to do? Please comment at Talk:Association of Armed Struggle#Requested move.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The article (Polish: Związek Walki Czynnej) was just moved from "Union for Armed Struggle" to "Association for Active Combat". AAC doesn't seem to be used in English: [2]; UAC is: [3]. Same holds true if we replace for with of ( [4], [5]. I am thus reverting the move due to WP:NC - we should use existing names if possible, not invent better translations (personally I don't see much difference between those two).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, some more searching:
Based on the above, I think that the 1939 organization should be moved to "Union of Armed Struggle", and the 1908, to "Union of Active Struggle", unless we want to move them to Polish original names? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)