Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Warsaw (1920)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Battle of Warsaw (1920)

Partial self-nom. The eighteenth decisive battle of the world in the mostly forgotten war. References, battlebox, pics, maps (yes, plural), the plan, the prelude, the chronological narration and the aftermath. I invite your comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm a little worried about the quote at the beginning of the Aftermath section, lest it give the impression that we are endorsing that POV, but it does appear to be an excellent article. Everyking 20:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I like that quote, as it gives some 'life' to the encyclopedia prose, but if you think it should be moved to Wikiquote, I won't mind. So...you support, object or...?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Neither. I would support if not for the quote, but the quote isn't enough to make me object, either. Everyking 22:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. alteripse 02:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) Old comments: Nice article! I did some copyediting and offer a couple of suggestions: I think you might recheck consistency of spelling of some of the names (like Budyonni?); a couple vary a bit in different paragraphs and I wouldn't dare to judge which version is correct. Second, to my taste there are too many "might have beens" in the main narrative. A Russian point of view could have written the same thing as a tragedy, with all the might-have-beens described as lost opportunities. I'm not asking you to completely abandon a patriotic POV, but maybe move all of those statements to the end section where you describe the significance of the battle. You could have a paragraph or two describing how much a "near thing" it was, and what key different events might have led to a different outcome. Third, stick to the simple past indicative tense for the main narrative-- avoid the contorted perfect future constructions. Finally a couple of quibbles about the significance: most people would consider communism a product and aspect of Western Civilization, unpleasant as it was, so it doesn't sound right to claim that the temporary defeat of communism saved western civilization (from itself?). Likewise, since Christianity survived the 40-year Soviet occupation of Poland a generation later, that claim also seems a little questionable to me. All these are minor suggestions, and I wouldn't bother to do the copyediting and suggestions if I didn't think it an overall great article. With most of those items addressed I would support featured status. alteripse 03:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Spelling of Semyon Budyonny unified to the one in his article name. As for might have beens and POV objectios - could you be more specific and quote exactly what do you find arguable? The article has been to my knowledge read and worked on by Russians as well. Few days ago we have reached a consensus regardin POV on the main war article, and with moving the quote to Wikiquote I think all specific objections should be resolved - but then there may still be some POVed sentences in the Battle article we missed. I would be the first to agree that Wiki is no place for *any* patriotic POV. We are here to present the facts, not alternative history (as interesting as it might have been). But please note the fact that one of the Soviet goals was to spread the revolution and by losing the battle (decisive in the war) they were significantly delayed (by ~20 years). D'Abernon did not called this war 'The eighteenth decisive battle of the world' for nothing - and he was no Polish (nor Soviet) nationalist :) As for communism being a product of Western Civilisation - it was, partially, but the fact is that WC has adopted a diffrent set of values then communism and more or less actively actually fought against communism (thus, yes, in some way it did fight against itself). Note that in the same fashion we could argue that Nazizm was a product of Western Civ, and the Second World War was a kind of a civil war for the Western Civ... I don't understand your 'questionable claim' reference to Christianity in Poland, could you elaborate? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to the image caption guide you're not supposed to write "Polish defences near Warsaw at Miłosna" but rather something like "Although the Polish defences near Warsaw at Miłosna were only weakly supported by artillery they were nevertheless instrumental in turning back the Soviet onslaught". (<- made up non-sense). I personally think this is a bit silly but you should at least know about it. -- Haukurth 15:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose. Polish patriotic POV. 172 01:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) On second thought, neutral. The problems do not compare to other related articles, which are somewhat slanted toward a POV. Statements like the following, though, raise some concerns: ...destroyed Lenin's hopes of spreading the communist revolution westward and helping the communist sympathisers in the German Revolution. 172 01:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) Abstain Better now. [1] I can only vote "abstain" for now since I am not competent enough in the realm of the military history. 172 15:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    • Well. Lenin had plans - and hopes - for spreading communist revolution westwards, true or false? The Battle of Warsaw destroyed those plans, true or false? There were communist symphatisers in the German Rev, true or false? If something here is false, by all means, let me know so I can correct it ASAP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • We had this dicussion on Polish-Soviet War. The above statement makes it out to be like the Battle of Tours or something, when it was really one part of a rapid series of setbacks for communist revolutionary activity in Eastern and Central Europe following the end of the war. 172 20:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I removed this sentence from the lead entirely, and added a new paragraph in the aftermath section. After all, that sentence refered to aftermath of the entire war, not the battle, so you are right, no point to mention it in such lenght in the battle lead. The new paragraph is toned down with agreed NPOVed words from PSWar and I change it a bit so it refers to the aftermath of the Battle, not the entire War. Is it better?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Much better. Nice work on the article. 172 15:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - I find it strange that there are so many comments and no clear votes... Halibutt 17:33, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support.--ZayZayEM 06:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support--Emax 14:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support --Space Cadet 14:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor object. This article is good, but the mixed use of Bolshevist and Soviet is confusing. This needs to be unified, or at least clearly explained (like is done in the Polish-Bolshevik War article (which is actually named Polish-Soviet War). I would personally prefer to see the word Bolshevik used, because the word Soviet is associated with Soviet Union, which did not formally exist until 1922. However, main point is that usage should be consistent, or clearly explained in the beginning of the article. Jeronimo 07:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Balcer 20:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Battle_of_Warsaw_%281920%29_aa7e.html"