Talk:Poznań 1956 protests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Poznań 1956 protests has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 8, 2007.
August 21, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Poland Portal
Poznań 1956 protests is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Title

Present title is less than satisfactory. Especially since, in English, "June" can be a female given name; hence the article might be mistaken as being about a girl named June who lives in Poznań.

Consider change to: "Poznań 1956 protests"?

logologist 02:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Indeed, Poznań June or June of Poznań might seem a tad odd in English. On the contrary, that's how the phenomenon is called in Polish and the name seems to be well-established, along with other of Polish months (September for 1939, March for 1968, January for January Uprising and so on). Moreover, practically any name of the month can be given to a child in the US, so I doubt we should be too worried about that. Or should we? Halibutt 14:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)==
How about June of 1956 in Poznań? Halibutt

[edit] Name spelling

Shouldn't the name "Stanislav Poplavsky" be spelled as "Stanisław Popławski" instead of its transliteration from Russian? That's how other Polish names are spelled.Tsf 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was moved to Stanislav Poplavsky; the issue should be raised on that talk page I think.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased article. It shows only one side. Recommending to rewrite starting with German version as original text

Actually, this article at some stage was relatively well written, just like the German and Italian versions are, but it has been rewritten at later stage to fit a profile of only one reference - 2. Ł. Jastrząb, "Rozstrzelano moje serce w Poznaniu. Poznański Czerwiec 1956 r. – straty osobowe i ich analiza", Wydawnictwo Comandor, Warszawa 2006 - which is a piece of sheer propaganda and shows only one side - SB (Polish equivalent of KGB) side. Dr Łukasz Jastrząb is a very young and fresh baked Dr (PhD) from IPN Institute - a state sponsored agency to research recent history, which is infamous for attracting many so called "new historians" known better as "history revisionists", and Dr Jastrząb is one of them. Just like those who try to rewrite history of holocaust downplaying the numbers or even trying to proof it never happened. He based his research on SB records only, which were partly destroyed and partly doctored, and had concluded after that, that this was the only and infallible truth while all the rest was hearsay including the eyewitnesses statements in the court of law and a part of well cultivated mystery. Just like trying to estimate number of victims of Auschwitz-Birkenau basing on Nazi records only. You would arrive at one million, while the real number stands between four and five million. In Poznań his book was unanimously discredited as sloppy and dishonest, see opinion of Głos Wielkopolski (a Poznań major daily) readers [1]. Poznań 1956 Accidents, as we Poznanians use to call it, are very well documented. I give you a link for all of the books related to this event, and the work of Dr Jastrząb is only one of them, however, the one less accurate - Poznański Czerwiec 1956 roku w ujęciu historycznym - wybór książek z PBP [2]. I recommend the work by Dr hab. Stanisław Jankowiak, naczelnik OBEP IPN w Poznaniu Zranione miasto : Poznań w czerwcu 1956 r./ Stanisław Jankowiak, Paweł Machcewicz, Agnieszka Rogulska - Poznań ; Warszawa : Instytut Pamięci Narodowej - Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu, 2003. - 215 s. : il. ; 30 cm. - ISBN 83-89078-28-7 who estimates number of casualties around 100, which is the most reliable according to the eyewitnesses statements, though the state approved list back in 1981 was at 74 while the movement Solidarity put it at 101including names, birthdates and affiliation of the victims (Aula UAM Exposition, June 28 1981). The state approved list didn't include names of people who died in aftermath of the riots from wounds, repression etc. Names of killed soldiers if any were never released. Allegedly they've been secretely buried at Biedrusko Military Base - a vast and totally off limits complex north of Poznań. Now, back to the text, what is the most striking tendency in it? Trying to exonerate SB and to blame Polish soldiers and workers on strike for the bloodbath. Polish soldiers, those from the common draft called from the garrisons throughout the city in the first stage of conflict didn't take part in it; they even sympathized with workers. It's all very well documented. No one has shot nobody, but this part was conveniently omitted by the authors of this article. So who did that? Special forces brought from Biedrusko Army Base with assistance of the so called Russian "advisors" and under command of Russian general did that, but this is also omitted. Instead, full blame is put on Polish regulars, while SB officers fired just a couple of stray shots, and that's it. The only good thing is that the authors of this article didn't include that part from Jastrząb "story book" how the rebels overcame 32 tanks with their bare hands and then started to fire into the crowd. I recommend to rewrite this article completely starting with earlier version similar to present German page. Polish version is a mirror site of this English one and was criticized at length alike but to no avail - see discussion on Polish site - and should be discounted. greg park avenue 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For starters, the article uses quite a lot of different references - L. Jastrzab are only 4 out of 26. If you have a specific academic sources contradicting the text, cite them; newspaper contradicting a scholarly source loses per WP:RS. Certainly if you have sources to expand it, please go ahead, other casualties estimates are also welcomed. But please read the text carefuly; above you claim that govt. forces were "under command of Russian general... but this is also omitted" - yet the text mentions that the government forces were led by Polish-Soviet general Stanislav Poplavsky...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Russian general Konstantin Rokossovsky is omitted, he who took over and ordered troops to shoot the civilians, which explains who was really in control in Poland back in 1956. No Polish government and no PM Cyrankiewicz, as this article states, was. Not even Moscow, it was Rokossovsky's problem to fix it, while Poplavsky was only an underling following orders same as Cyrankiewicz did and who came into picture the next day only after Russians sized control. That's why Cyrankiewicz comments abot chopping off hand are NOT relevant here. Basically, this article is more about political power play than of what really happened. Lots of political views which don't belong here, very little, only several sentences regard actual uprising, and even those are interrupted by political comments and are poorly written - a cloudy picture, nothing transparent; that's why was it rated B. Only an expert in Polish affairs would understand something from it. It needs major cleanup until there would be a reason to go forth with additional editing; otherwise this picture darkens even more. I don't want to do that, because if I did, it would trigger invasion of the body snatchers from Polish wiki, I'm afraid. greg park avenue 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are welcomed to improve this article with verifiable sources. Rokossowski's relation is interesting and certainly worth mentioning if sourced. But Polish government had a little say; to say it was completly irrelevant is incorrect: it clearly supported Soviet actions (not that it had much choice, of course, Poland being a puppet state until October). And Cyrankiewicz quote is widely mentioned and a nice touch to illustrate "dialogue" between people and the government in those times.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that mentioning Rokossovsky needs other sources than those which exist already in wikipedia. He was in charge of all armed forces in Poland and that's enough one needs to know. You don't have to explain what does that mean to an English reader. There's a saying in America "Money talks, bullshit walks", that's an American way. In Russian money means guns. Remember the siege of Russian parliament in early 90's? Who's got guns was in charge. That's a Russian way. You only need to present the facts step by step and then the text becomes transparent.
Thank you for welcoming me to edit this page; I understand you're a host here now, but I'd rather not - too many loose ends to take care of and it's your baby anyway. It would be faster to write this article from scratch. However if I was in your place I'd put that Cyrankiewicz line aside, some place else like in a separate chapter reserved for such sayings and political explanations, not in the middle of action, because it distracts the reader. And I'd cut out all those lenghty elaborates about hardliners and political background too. It's too heavy to digest. greg park avenue 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Rokossowski was the top military commander, but how much did he delegate to Popławski, and how short was his own leash from Moscow, needs to be referenced: my sources mentioned Poplawski, and this is why he is there. We need sources for Rokossowski's prominence, per WP:VP. Per WP:OWN, this is not my article - although I wrote a good part of it, and I am probably the only person watching it, so I like to keep track of what happens to my articles. I am in favour of expansion, but don't have access to the sources you mention currently. I'd however oppose cutting the political background: it may be overstressed, but the correct solution is to expand the other sections for balance. Again, I hope you will find time to work on this article, it's not a long way from WP:GA level.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from the article by its co-author

{{POV}}

[edit] GA Review

I went through the article and it seems mostly OK, unless I am missing something. I did some tweaks to some bits which bordered on editorial phrasing and copyedited the article. The part that remains is that the references need to be formatted consistently and fully like most article, and also the date formats need to be consistent - not use June 3 in one place and then 3 June. Secondly there are some weasel wrods where it keeps on mentioning "brutal" and "persecution" - the action punishments used by the communists need to be spelt out - eg job demotion, blacklist, beatings, their children's school grades got marked down and whatever it was that happend. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have begun to work on that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope the above issues have been addressed by now? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks and well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Hi all ! Can we add this to the article ? - [3]. The site is very nicely done and it is in 8 languages ! Greetings.

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason the site requires login and password? We have an external link to [4] which now has the same problem...? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday everything was ok, I don't know what happened...

--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Even the main page ([5]) has the same problem. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)