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

As has become routine with Piotrus nominations, this page has been compromised by canvassing. Here Piotrus asks Tymek for his Gadu-Gadu number for "discussions of articles, etc" and, an hour later, Tymek appears on this page to support Piotrus. Gadu-Gadu is a Polish instant messaging client used by Piotrus to spur other Polish editors "to action" and for canvasssing FAC votes for as long as I know him. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have not talked to Tymek about this article off-wiki, your statement is a pure bad faith assumption.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the votes of Turgidson, qp10qp, etc, it is a reasonable assumption. I wonder how all of your traditional yes-men learn about the nomination... I suppose it's some sort of extrasensory perception.[1] [2] [3] [4] --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed Polish and Russian noticeboards and the MILHIST wikiproject, as well as all the active users that were involved in significantly editing and/or reviewing the article. Your claims that I have informed only "my yes-men", or that all support votes come from them, is a poor attempt to question the validity of this discussion. Why won't you address editors who ask you to provide references for your claims instead?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, unlike yourself, I have never pressed any "claims" about the Soviet "invasion" in mainspace. It's not my responsibility to write the article for you. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really resent the implication in the above comment by Ghirla that I was "canvassed" by Piotrus for the discussion in this FAC nomination. This assertion is totally groundless: I started editing Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), just like that, here (I keep an eye on things, ya know?). After looking at the FAC discussion, I did some more editing and payed attention to the arguments pro and con, till I made my mind and expressed my opinion, here (I continued copyediting the candidate FAC article since then). Finally, the assertion that I am one of the "traditional yes-men" of Piotrus (or anyone else) is simply grotesque. Turgidson 12:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but I see you in Wikipedia only when you appear on some talk page to vote in league with Piotrus and other GG clients. It's up to you to prove that you have independent opinions. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ghirla, why can't you assume good faith from your fellow co-editors? Most come to discuss out of share curriousity for the subject, and only on days when they find 20-30 spare minutes to do so. Have you also heard of people agreeing on one item of discussion and totally disagreing on another? It is so irritating when you and 1-2 others make it all about the editors and not about the issues. It is very offensive from your part to ask everyone to justify themselves in front of you! ("It's up to you to prove that you have independent opinions.") Only Vyshinsky used to talk like that. Are you in your mind, why do you see everyone as your enemy? :Dc76 12:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to prove to you, Ghirla. Have a good day. Turgidson 12:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: the above claim - that I recruited editors for "yes" vote here - is now discussed in a related ArbCom.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you consult WP:CANVAS? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The users which you accuse of being my "yes-men" have the right to know that this accusation is being discussed in other places.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the artcile will be assessed according to what Polish reviewers or their opponents say. The article needs more random, impartial reviewers; but there's been a shortage of those at FAC recently, which is worrying.

Ghirla, you say that it's not your responsibility to help write the article; but that would certainly have been one way to solve the problem. The best thing that could have happened would have been for excellent editors like yourself and Irpen to have long ago added the material that you believe has been deliberately left out. Clearly the books in your countries present a different account than the one presented by western historians, but only you and others who have access to those sources can provide the material that you feel is lacking.qp10qp 14:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that would require working on content and issue, not flaring personal accusations left and right, which is very easy. What if he fails to find sourses supporting his POV or supporting it only to a small extent? He could not then shout accusations as now. IMHO, it is a psichological and inter-relational problem that some users have to a number of subjects, nothing to do with the content.:Dc76 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed with your insinuations that "I fail to find sources supporting my POV", because I don't push any POV in the mainspace, in the first place. Your comments show total ignorance of what I do in the project. I see no point in explaining why I never edit articles on 20th-century history, let alone on Polish history. You need to know the entire background before making facile conclusions and airing them in the ongoing arbitration is if it were a trivial chatroom. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this is not an edit, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have neither removed nor added content. While I did not mention Dc76's name above, in view of his heated reaction to this thread, I would welcome some explanation of his canvassing activity here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter accusation ("canvassing") by Ghirla: This afternoon, I noticed this and this (b/c these two articles were put by the computer in my watchlist - it does so with all articles I edit). I clicked here, and for the first time me being on WP I notices Ukrainian as a native language. So I left this message to the user: said him hello, and told him about all the articles directly or remotely related to Ukraine that I have editted, and asked him to help provide a Ukrainian input. For example, there are a couple which are related to Ukraine and Romania. Several Romanians and several users of other nations contributed, but noone Ukrainian. So I jumped at the first occasion, dispite the fact that he perhaps will do edits that some Romanians won't like. In my oppinion it is the civilized thing to do. I had similar experience with Panonian (he is from Serbia), KIBD, Lasztochka and Fz22 (from Hungary or Hungarian by heritage), with DDima (from USA, but apparently orriginally from Ukraine). DDima is an excellent editor and especially organizer of data in WP, therefore he ofetn corrects or adds valuable small details (like one day he'd introduce population for 100 articles incl 3-4 I editted, next day he's list the mayor for the same - very valuable), but at least in the articles I saw him, he did not show interest in doing major edits. If you will read my discussions with Panonian, KIBD and Fz22, you will see how we managed from disagreing on sensitive issues to work it out so that on next arrising issues we had common view point and stoped for exmple the arrising dispute on naming convention of localities with Hungarian minorities in Transylvania: it was potentially firing question, b/c there were a couple die hard from each side, but when they saw a solid and well-argumented discussion on issue between a number of users, and result: Have you heard about the problem of naming convention of localities with Hungarian minorities in Transylvania? no, and you won't hear about it, b/c we solved it before it grew big. If this is "canvassing", then let me say that I'll do it again. That's why I think saying hello to people is a nice and productive attitude. Now, if you don't like saying hello, it is your business. But let me talk with others how I like. I am not talking about you, I was talking about a number of articles, that I'd like him/her to read, if he/she has time and interest. And what did you do: profile me in order to accuse of something you imagine! Thank you very much, very "nice" of you.
I did not say "you fail to find sourses". I said "if you try, and fail to find enough sourses, then you could not continue accusing." The sense is: you did not pick a specific statement of paragraph from the article, then a second one, and bit by bit go through them all, you picked one of the editors, and accused him of ... being Polish and sending messages to Poles (the latter without giving any DIFFs, just plain accusation).
But you do edit articles about 20th century history. Please, find your name here.:Dc76 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I periodically look around for articles dealing with the Soviet era, here I am. I certainly recognize the editors here, but I haven't been canvassed nor am I stalking. We could all do with a bit less conspiracy theory. Perhaps if we stuck more to content... — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really, Vecrumba? I don't think so. I have edited recently Occupation of Baltis States and now you come accidentally to new "occupation" article in which I am interested? And why you bothered to write you are not stalking anyone? Somebody has accused you? Or you just felt a thing someone calls consience? Vlad fedorov 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Vlad, I was interested in non-Baltic Soviet invasion and occupation articles (e.g., Romania) and what I characterize as support for Soviet historiography among some Wikipedia editors long before you ever arrived anywhere on my radar screen.

My "appearance" actually coincides with having wrapped up my Latvian choir and opera guild activities for the summer and finally having some exploration time again ("Soviet occupation of", "Soviet invasion of"--BTW, invasion of Poland comes up first, the featured article entry a bit below). My statement was only to make it absolutely clear that my presence here was not solicited or otherwise prompted in any way except interest in the topic--I've dealt with most of the folks who have posted here (supporting or not supporting) for quite some time now.

As for the need I feel to head of accusations, I've had canvassing, stalking, puppetry, meat-puppetry--and far uglier. You yourself found it necessary to add a dedicated section to enter accusations of partisanship not in keeping with intellectual integrity[5]. Calling editors a "mob" really is a poor substitute for producing reputable references. Is this not a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

If you've graduated with all the degrees you say you have from the places you say you have, I would have thought you would have learned to support your position through applying reputable and directly pertinent sources to your theses, not through applying dismissive and derisive labels to those who disagree with your position.

Nonetheless, my conscience does appreciate your concern for its well-being. :-) — Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is remarkable that people who vote "for" are Poles + Biophys

And of course this happens accidentally. And Piotrus arbitration case on canvassing is also accidental. However, there are no places for accidentality in description of return of Western Belarus as inavsion and occupation. Well, this is mob Wikipedia and mob reception of history. It is really FA rated mob. Vlad fedorov 03:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is more complex than that. An invasion to restore power may still be called an invasion; for example, the allied invasion of France was intended to restore freedom to the French. But as far as the word "occupation" is concerned, the article refers to the occupation of Poland (which is a normal term applied to war-time ethnic Poland) but to the reunification of Western Belarus and Western Ukraine. Nowhere does it call the liberation or reunification of those areas an occupation. But you must remember that when the Soviet army reached the geographical line agreed with Hitler they had gone into areas of ethnic Poland beyond Western Belarus and Western Ukraine, some of which are still part of Poland today. So it would not be correct to say that the Soviets only entered Western Belarus and Western Ukraine. It is a complex distinction, but one the article makes clear.

On the question of who supports and opposes at the FAC, bear in mind that this is not a vote. Raul will surely look at the merits of the arguments rather than being swayed by any nationalistic point of view.qp10qp 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is remarkable that people who vote against come from former Soviet Union, or rather - from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Return of Western Belarus? Do you know Vlad that in Ryga in 1921 the Soviets offered Poland whole territory of Belarus, together with Minsk? Polish delegation refused, as they did not want too many minorities.

The Germans have come to terms with the fact that what happened on September 1, 1939, was an act of aggression. What the Soviets did on September 17 was the same. Period. Tymek 23:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gadu Gadu

Ghirla's accusations are ridiculous and show the real face of this man, who obviously spends most of his time checking pages of Polish contributors, snooping some non-existent conspiracy. I have never talked to Piotrus about any articles, in fact we have not even talked at all so far (apart from saying "hi" to each other and exchanging greetings), as he is on vacation and I am too busy to spend time on Gadu Gadu. Piotrus has never asked me for support with anything, I doubt if he ever will.

Besides, dear Ghirla, I have one question. Why do you oppose so much nomination of this articles? Are you afraid of the truth? Your beloved Red Army and NKVD commited several atrocities in Polish Kresy in 1939 and then, in the period 1939-1941 and 1944-1945. This article does not even mention them, to appease such individuals as you I guess. Anyway, personal slandering will not change history and truth will prevail. Tymek 19:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "oppose" nomination of this or any other article. On the other hand, I consider it awfully biased, all the way from the title. For some people Wikipedia is a soapbox to vent their nationalist anger. It's their right. But they don't have the right to accuse anyone of "spending most of their time checking pages of Polish contributors" or defending their "beloved NKVD". Unless backed up by evidence, these accusations are outrageous, incivil and merit expulsion from the project. Unlike some others, I'm not guilty of using Wikipedia for promoting nationalist "truth" or using instant messaging agents "to discuss articles". I intend to make a stand against ethnic cliques of all sorts and against their abuse of FAC process. You may have noted that, unlike some others, I'm not followed by a crowd of Russians defending my opinions. The only way that you *won't* be alone is by being a nationalist yourself. That's the irony. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for all "nationalists" but I can say that I have a ton of indisputable (and supported by reputable NON-"nationalist" sources) facts on my side--and those who dispute the same said "nationalist" views appear to have none--when it comes to painting official Soviet contributions to mankind as less than glorious and official Soviet historiography as less than truthful. "In the News there is no truth, and in the Truth there is no news."

My dear Andrey, factual descriptions, e.g., "Soviet invasion of..." are not biased, they are, in the end, simply factual. There are plenty of Russian accomplishments, even Soviet (era) accomplishments, that one can take justifiable pride in without also having to paint the Soviet portrayal of history as somehow being truthful--this from a regime that wrote (and rewrote) history to serve politics--and was proud of it!

When your first contribution in creation of the featured article talk page, let me remind you [6], is to accuse people, and not discuss content, nothing good comes of it. You complain of outrageous accusations, yet you were the first to accuse. If you want people to take you seriously, stick to content and let others look for sinister nationalist plots. You only demean yourself otherwise. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Probably not necessary for most here, but, in case the significance of the saying is not apparent: "In Izvestija there is no Pravda, and in Pravda, there is no Izvestija." — Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, you do not oppose this nomination, this [7] was somebody else, I guess Mr. Hyde. Dear Ghirla, this is not about nationalism. This is about truth. I have never come across a German who today says that what happened on September 1, 1939 was an act of unification of Upper Silesia with the rest of Silesia. The Germans know too well that Hitler invaded Poland and there is no justification to it. Alas, you people still try to find excuses for something that cannot be excused. Unification of Western Ukraine? Well, Stalin and his cronies cared about Ukrainians as much as I care about Britney Spears. Ukrainian famine was a nationalistic myth, I pressume. By the way, you are not followed by the Russian crowd. Vlad is an Eskimo. Greetings. Tymek 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]