Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus keep. Cool Hand Luke 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War

Controversies of the Polish-Soviet War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article was created specifically to spin-off the referenced content one side in the content dispute did not like to see in the main Polish-Soviet War article. There is no reason the Wikipedia should have such an obvious fork. The atrocities are a part of the war and should be mentioned in the war article as they are mentioned in the sources. If there is too much detail, the solution is obvious. All important controversies should have their own encyclopedic articles. But this not really an article but an obvious backburner created to be a dump for an information rather than the source of the information only harms the Wikipedia's integrity. Since the article contains some material and references, I propose to preserve this in history and have it instead blanked by a redirect to a war article. --Irpen 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, the nominator. --Irpen 06:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • To be clear: do you propose to merge it back to the PWS or just to delete it?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I was clear in my proposal. I do not propose to merge everything to PSW, only the events crucial enough. Besides, most of the events of the crucial importance are already in the main article and not in an artificial extra section but properly integrated in the text flow, like this should have been done in the first place. Other events of lesser significance can be merged to narrower articles such as the articles on specific operations, the articles on specific objects, cities, etc. Some atrocities deserve to be covered in their own articles and some of such articles already exist, like Pinsk massacre, Vilna offensive#Atrocities, article on Polish interment camps, etc.) To be able to easily do this and take all the time needed for that, I propose to actually blank this article with a redirect to PSW, so that all the material is preserved in history. Most of it is already duplicated in those other articles. Links to those articles properly integrated in the text of the main one is enough and, in fact, much better than the current monstrosity. This article is nothing but an artificial creation, a pasted section from another article that should have not be there in the first place. No, I do not "DONTLIKEIT", as far as the facts in the articles go. All I am saying is that they are covered unencyclopedically, and we should do better. Additionally, this artificial article serves to some POV pushers as an excuse to remove facts from where they are relevant on the whim claiming that there is a "dedicated article" for those. The article, thus, serves as an artificially created backburner to make frivolous arguments in a host of content disputes. To summarize, I do not want to suppress any info. Moreover, this info is already covered elsewhere. All i want is to have the material covered properly. --Irpen 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
        • It all sounds good, until one remembers that this article has not grown significantly since it was split from the PSW and before it was split, several users strongly objected to "deletion of sourced information", despite arguments that many belong in specific subartiles; and on which events are "crucial enough". I don't see the point in restarting those old discussions. This article is no less encyclopedic then Soviet war crimes or Nazi war crimes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
          • "It all sounds good" is a good start. Maybe we'll get somewhere from, here. I take it from your first argument above, that the article was indeed created (not actually created but merely pasted from an existing section, the unfortunate section, I must admit) purely to limit the "damage" from the editing disagreement to the Main article. This only confirms my view, that this is an artificial backburner. What info belongs where is a totally separate debate. Let's continue it at the talk pages of those articles but without invoking this dump as the "place for everything". Finally, there is a huge difference between this article and the Nazi war crimes. The latter took place not just in a single local war but Europe-wide. The latter are the subject of the numerous scholarly research in their own right. The latter became the subject of a series of dedicated trials that produced and abundance of archival and historic literature. In our case here, all we have is the war which is just as bad as all the wars. Atrocities are a part of the war. That Polish troops slaughtered Jews in their advances is notable enough to be mentioned in the main article (with details about each massacre covered in dedicated articles, as they are already.) That Reds looted and killed at their advances is notable too, while the details belong elsewhere. That both sides starved to death/killed POW's is also notable in its own right and needs to be mentioned. These examples of what happened have to be covered properly rather than arbitrarily dumped together in an artificial article on the subject that has no integral scholarly value, unlike the Nazi war crimes. I have no intention whatsoever to strike out any info. All I want is to have it covered properly. As you admit that the article was a workaround against bickering about what is of what significance, I say that this is a bad workaround. Let's build an encyclopedia, not an artificial creation aimed at solving the problems you and I have with each others' POV. --Irpen 17:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Should we write Controversy in Polish history or Controversies in Eastern European history? The only common between those events in the article is that they are based on the sourced challenged or rejected, it is not the way to build articles Alex Bakharev 11:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If Eastern European history or Polish history articles grew a disproportionately large section on some controversies, then of course, yes. Large or weakly related sections are often split into separate articles; this is how Wikipedia grows.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article could use some minor cleanup (mostly restructuring, but also prose is a bit hard to read). Well referenced and follows WP:NPOV guideline, not favoring one side over the other. Topic is certainly noteworthy and should be included to Wikipedia. I am unfamiliar with the content dispute in question (link, please?), but the main Polish-Soviet War article is too long (98KB text, file size 240KB), so splitting seems necessary. I recommend the other side to improve the article, not attempt to delete it. Sander Säde 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No one is claiming that the article is unbalanced. It is simply unencyclopedic and serves the wrong purpose: keeping the info out of the high-profile articles. Such info, if too detailed, belongs to event articles, not some weird artificially created entries. --Irpen 07:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sander. Seems this AfD is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Martintg 09:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually you are wrong. The article includes a lot of Polish atrocities. So it is not a POV conflict. Also, your assumption is offensive. Please avoid making such. --Irpen 09:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Polish-Soviet War is FA; the controversies/atrocities section was added afterwards, included some less then reliable sources and grew too large - hence, was split off (just as many other articles in Category:Polish-Soviet War). The article includes both mniscule details that are not relevant to the main article, and claims referenced with sources that are below FA-standards. It should not be deleted, nor merged back as this would destabilize a good (and already very large - 97 kilobytes!) article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  10:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is notable subject and refferences are provided. I agree with Marting, this AFD was done based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--MariusM 11:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The nominator Irpen claims above: "No one is claiming that the article is unbalanced" and "The article includes a lot of Polish atrocities. So it is not a POV conflict". So it's either a POV fork, or it isn't. Which is it? Martintg 11:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no compelling rationale to delete this article, it's sourced and factual. Ghirla might note that this article refers to the Soviet Union rather than Russia. Nick mallory 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    You might note that the Soviet Union was created in 1922, while the Polish-Russian War was over by March 1921. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Your expertise on the Soviet Union is indeed striking Ghirla. A labour of love no doubt. Presumably you'd like to change all the references in the article to 'Russian' rather than 'Soviet' then? Nick mallory 12:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the correct term would be Bolshevik, but somewhere in the archives of the PSW is the decision to use Soviet (which I personally disagree with, but its another matter entirely).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I always was told in school that Soviet Union was created in October of 1917, but they got different calendar there, so there is a chance I got those dates wrong. greg park avenue 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. While this article is well-sourced and balanced, it needs more wikilinks and some editing for clarity. It can certainly be confusing for English-speakers as it's torn out of the war's context and reads like a translation at times. I would tentatively propose to merge it back into the main article. I know, it's long, but it provides the necessary background (especially maps). Besides, given that there is no such thing as a war without controversy, I'm generally wary of even well-intentioned forks like this. --Targeman 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per User:Piotrus as a useful fork to the main article, because it shows both sides. Suggest to omit the word "controversy" in the article title. This way only the facts will be allowed into the article, not the rumours or politician's statements. Suggested title: Atrocities of the Polish-Soviet war. There is an ongoing discussion concerning the term "allegations of apartheid" in a series of articles on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Apartheid, which I think wil make a precedence and shall show, why using such words as "allegations" or "controversy" in the titles may be misleading and invite any kind of propaganda. greg park avenue 15:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    I have added section headings. I am not sure if atrocities imply to the property distruction or POW situation, both which are significantly covered in the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    Move the smaller stuff to the Aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War then. That's the textbook area. greg park avenue 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    Also, take a look at German page. They claim up to 300,000 murdered Jews, in references. But that's small potatoes, one Ukrainian once tried to sell me that Polish murdered 800,000 people around Lviv. I waged ten bucks that in Lviv there live maybe 100,000 souls, no more, so how come so many casualties could be claimed? But I lost ten bucks, he broght me the day after the printed copy from some encyclopedia, that Lviv currently counts over one million inhabitants, and even got the tram system running. But in Polish maps it always looked very small place like Radom or Częstochowa. greg park avenue 02:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree with the proposition that this is simply a "backburner" article, or that this harms the integrity of Wikipedia in some way. I'll advance the opposite theory, which is that, by making a spinoff from an article that is getting edited and counter-edited, this helps prevent the integrity of Wikipedia from being harmed. From what I can tell, the original Polish-Soviet War article is on a subject where the emotions run high, and the article has a history of retaliatory edits, degenerating into that childish exchange where one person puts something up, and another takes it back down, then the first one strikes back, and so on. While edit/counteredit makes for a bad encylopedia article, it's the price that we pay for the higher concept of a "free encylopedia that anyone can edit". If the integrity of "Polish-Soviet War" has been compromised by the fact that it changes about as often as an electric billboard, then it makes sense to acknowledge the controversies and present both sides in less emotionally charged separate article. Backburner? This one belongs on the front burner. Mandsford 16:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this what summary style is for. When a section that is notable and well sourced gets too long you spin it off into its own article - leaving a summary on the parent page. This article does need a clean-up, but I see no reason to merge, delete or redirect - its too long for a merge and deletion/redirect is pointless--Cailil talk 17:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — Sufficiently notable and encyclopedic. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • In all honesty, I'm not really seeing a POV fork here. I despise POV forks with a passion, but this does not appear to be one of them in that it appears to be (reasonably) balanced. This is exactly the sort of stuff we don't want in main articles (because such things, like trivia sections, tend to get rather long), but here a separate article would appear to be appropriate. Yes, it's probably something else to fight over, but that's just inevitable. Moreschi Talk 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge back into the original article - Slapping together facts and making a "controversy" out of it is bordering WP:OR territory Corpx 04:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Valid way of dealing with information too detailed for the main article. --Folantin 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: the article fails to deliver its promises. There's no information how the Polish-Soviet war influenced politics and propaganda and relation between the countries later, after the war. Information about the atrocities of a war belongs naturally to the main article (in form of overview and statistics rather than individual cases that usually fall bellow scope of encyclopedia). The Aftermath of the Polish-Soviet War looks as a good place to place this kind of information (btw, the lion share of speculations there should be reduced somewhat). Pavel Vozenilek 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per several reasons described above. Too much detail given to propaganda would cloud the article, so seperate one is be better solution. Attempts to create propaganda for political means regarding this subject deserve seperate article.--Molobo 23:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others, no need to create forks. --Kuban Cossack 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.