Talk:Polish invasion of Russia

Untitled

This nationalistic POV redirect has been created by User:Ghirlandajo just to use it in discussion on Halibutt's RfA.

Wrong. I created it for discussion on Russia-related_Wikipedia_notice_board. You may check my notice here. I care too little for Halibutt to create redirects because of him. --Ghirlandajo 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful indeed. I've checked it but it seems you're mostly discussing with yourself there :-( --Lysy ^(talk) 15:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's misleading as well because:

There were other, more important Polish invations on Russia

Ok, let's make it a dab page. "There were numerous Polish invasions of Russia: 1) Dymitriads; 2) Napoleon's invasion of Russia from the territory of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw; 3) Polish-Soviet War. --Ghirlandajo 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This war can hardly be called as an "Polish invasion on Russia"

from reasons like: it was mostly _Russia's invasion on Poland_ (main battle: Warsaw!) and it was supposed to be the first in a communism-spreading military campaign in Europe. What is more, it can be considered as a pre-emptive attack. The case is complicated as it was to some (I write some as I am not historian and AFAIK the degree is disputable) part of one of several interventions in chaos in former Russia Empire then and as far as I remember Polish forces were urged by Western countries to attack further but they disagreed (because of perception of nation's best interest, I guess).

So it were the likes of you who attempt to dissimulate the fact of Polish agression with the phrases like: "The Bolshevik regime in Russia wanted to invade Poland in order to carry the socialist revolution into the heart of Europe, and particularly into Germany. In this circumstances war was inevitable, and broke out in late 1919". Why not to say simply that Poland annexed half of Ukraine and half of Belarus? --Ghirlandajo 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover it was on today Eastern Ukraine's territories, which were a long disputed territory, however for a long time then in Russia (Russian Empire).

No problem. I'll make a redirect for Polish invasion of Soviet Russia. --Ghirlandajo 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not historian but Wikipedian and I don't like making fishy POV redirects just to use them in discussions just to show my POV by the way. Neither usage of this term nor creating a redirect can be IMHO explained.

That you are not historian is clear from the fact that you call 1919 Eastern Ukraine "a long disputed territory". A fine sample of Polish imperialism. --Ghirlandajo 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it so, please delete this redir. aegis maelstrom δ 00:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's the first thing Halibut will do on becoming admin. His friend Piotrus is already guilty of deleting redirects without prior voting (that's how he moved Polish imperialism to Międzymorze earlier this month). --Ghirlandajo 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, there's no reason to offend me or assume my bad will. As to Polish imperialism you started - there was a community consensus on redirecting it there. As to this one - I believe expanding it into a disambiguation page would be the best option as there were indeed several Polish invasions of Russia. And BTW, the current redirect seems the worst option to choose from, I'd rather call the Dymitriads the Polish invasion of Russia. Halibu tt 22:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation is fine with me. Don't forget the one in 1016, although your compatriots would say that there was no Russia at that time ;) --Ghirlandajo 23:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly there was no Russia in today definition of this word. aegis maelstrom δ 09:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I disagree with this redirect and I would think that the "Polish Invasion of Russia" should be used for a different war, that it the Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618), and not even as a redirect, but as a name for the article. Reasons I outlined at that article's talk as well as the other alternative name Russo-Polish War (1605-1618).

On the side note, as I already voiced at the Medzymorze's redirect, I was worried by an unileteral deletion of a redirect in order to move the article back that was done before the discussion that followed. This, as well as unblocking of notorious Molobo, was a stretch. --Irpen 23:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I'm afraid that Piotr's article will never be moved here, so let's make it a disambiguation page for the time being. --Ghirlandajo 23:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Ghirlandajo. I will respond this one issue despite of your shameful accusations. You write: Seconded. I'm afraid that Piotr's article will never be moved here, so let's make it a disambiguation page for the time being. while Irpen does not agree with you here. So what's your attitude actually? So far it seems to me that you just want to make any "Polish invasion on Russia" article, no matter which actually war would it describe. It is not looking for the truth. aegis maelstrom δ 00:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I seriously doubt there was any reason behind its creation outside of creating conflicts while there are none. But I might be wrong on this one too. Anyway, For me an ideal solution would be for this article to be a redirect to Russo-Polish War, as the fact on who started which war is in many cases quite disputable and the undisputable fact is that these wars really happened. Also, as to the "war of 1920", it indeed has started in 1918 and... Poland did not invade a single inch of Russia, so the term is quite incorrect. But still, it is perfectly valid as a redirect - the only problem is where does it redirect to. Halibu tt 00:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't want to speculate why G. tries to use every opportunity to antagonise Polish and Russian editors. I certainly would prefer the other way round. Surely it's easier to create a controversial redirect than to remove one but I don't think this should be abused. Now that we have it already, I think that redirect to Russo-Polish War is the most sensible thing to do with it. --Lysy ^(talk) 15:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strong candidate for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. Keep it up, guys. —Michael Z. 2005-11-21 16:50 Z

I don't see any edit war here so far. What I can see is that Ghirlandajo ignored our suggestion to make this page a redirect to Russo-Polish War and made it into dab page instead. Now, as he expected I'm concerned about the 1016 invasion. As G. noticed himself, there was no Russia, but Kievan Rus so that would be more a war against Ukraine not Russia, if any. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who Thietmar of Merseburg was? Have you ever read him? --Ghirlandajo 18:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have never read him. In fact I do not read Latin. Do you think that anyone would think of plundering Kievan Rus as "Polish invasion of Russia" ? --Lysy ^(talk) 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apart from the fact that Ghirlandajo would probably prefer to call that state Kiev Russia... Anyway, just for the record, sometimes it is disputed whether the war indeed happened. And what's even more funny, despite the Polish legend of the Szczerbiec and a similar Ukrainian legend of the Latskiye Vorota in Kiev, there is little evidence that Boleslaus I really got as far as Kiev... Halibu tt 00:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DAB is valid

Regardless original intentions and opinions about them, the dab is valid, since the term is in use, and the usage is in different senses. Case closed. mikka (t) 19:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry mikkalai but do you mean every redirect using a term in use is valid? When, say, a homophobe will produce dozens of abusing terms of a gay person, will we keep it, because it's in use? Can I produce my POV redirects to the events concerning, say, Russian history? I don't want but can I? Can any nationality/religion/political view/cultural attitude/fans of pokemons, rock&roll or Britney Spears do the same?

Please, for me you seem to be a reasonable man so consider my point - are we an encyclopediae or a wikigarbage pile?

Best regards, aegis maelstrom δ 02:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after re-reading his comment I believe Aegis has got a point here. Just imagine the revert war over where the King of Rock'n'Roll should redirect to... Most Cute Thing Ever... On the other hand, the war of 1919-1920 is indeed sometimes referred to as such and, even though it is a factual mistake, it is a fact in itself. Halibu tt 02:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Ghirlandajo,

could you _not_ describe someone's one in the series of "disambig-repair" actions edit as a "POV-pushing"? It's not only an illegitimate accusation but also an unnecessary buzz. Thank you. aegis maelstrom δ 00:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, G., what is with that revert? Your accusation of vandalism is unfounded. My POV is that disambiguation pages should follow Wikipedia:Disambiguation guidelines, and I added a link to an article where I actually read some information about the event in question. —Michael Z. 2005-11-23 04:15 Z

Michael, can you cite an edit where I accused you of vandalism? I just think we need an explanation why each particular war may be classified as an invasion. As the articles on particular wars were edited primarily or solely by Polish editors, they did their best to dissimulate the fact of Polish agression. Strange to say, despite your own admonitions to the contrary, it was yourself who started edit wars on this article by contributing there. ;()--Ghirlandajo 09:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.O Wow, you are cheeky. Let me provide your quote: rvv POV-pushing to the last version by Mikkalai from here. If it's not accusation of vandalism you need to improve your English. ;D And the statement: it was yourself who started edit wars on this article by contributing there. ;() while it was you who created the biased redirect just makes me laugh. Not to mention your usual insults. Well, you just can't say you are sorry and you weren't right, can you? I thought you are just a POV author but you behave just like a troll. aegis maelstrom δ 09:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC) Probably I should add that Ghirlandajo instead of respond and say sorry started complaining again on admin's talk page... well, I really don't get his comments. Anybody? I'm waiting for notification if I were wrong...aegis maelstrom δ 10:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Golden rule: don't feed the troll. --Ghirlandajo 10:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you shall not be fed by me anymore, unless you invent a new insult. EOT for me. aegis maelstrom δ 10:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an explanation of anything here; in a disambiguation page the reader merely has to be able to identify the link he wants. A disambiguation page isn't an article, it's a page that shouldn't normally be linked to, and remains between the user and the encyclopedia article he seeks, so it should remain as minimal as possible. And I didn't start an edit war by making a single edit, you risk starting one with your revert and habitual inflammatory comments. If you think adding the Sviatopolk link adds POV, then remove it or add a better link about the plundering of Kiev, or remove that point altogether, since on its own the subject doesn't seem to even warrant an article, or start the article Plundering of Kiev (1018). But stop crying vandalism when you know there isn't any, and don't indulge in paranoid accusations of POV-pushing.

Ghirlandajo, instead of trolling, you should review Wikipedia:Good faith, Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Edit summaries, although I suspect you have more than enough good sense to understand the gist of these conventions. So just show a little respect for Wikipedia and for other editors. —Michael Z. 2005-11-23 15:58 Z

[following comment moved from User talk:Mzajac —MZ]

Michael, honestly, you need to cool off. Where did I accuse you of vandalism? If you think about "rvv", I can tell you that I was told that it is not identical to "rv" by Irpen only minutes ago. So don't take my ignorance too personally. On the other hand, you words about "paranoic accusations" and "trolling" are unworthy of an admin. Nobody cancelled Wikipedia:Civilty, as best I know. I really believe that the article in question should feature explanation of why any given event is deemed an invasion, to preclude other editors from arbitrary addition or removing items. --Ghirlandajo 16:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I am cooling off. For future reference, rvv means "revert (rv) vandalism (v)". Referring my edit as POV-pushing was not welcome either, since I was trying to make this disambiguation page as neutrally functional as possible—it was a completely unfounded accusation, and I'm sorry that I called it paranoid in response. "Trolling" was in response to your comment about feeding the trolls.

Again, a disambiguation page is not an article, and is not supposed to have anything on it which is not required to differentiate the links. If explanation for editors is necessary, then I suggest you put it in a hidden comment (such as ) or put a note at the top of the talk page. —Michael Z. 2005-11-23 16:34 Z

As for my golden rule, this was addressed to one particular editor, who asked me why I don't answer his questions. As for hidden comments, I left plenty of them a while ago in Dubno, but they still remain unheeded. Anyway, I will not contribute to this redirect any more. Let's close the topic. --Ghirlandajo 16:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this disambig is, Michael, that it links to events in history that barely can be called a "Polish invasion on Russia" - for instance as there was no Russia in today meaning of the word - and they show rather a Russian (Ghirlandajo's?) POV. Without any disclamer (term used in Russian historiography) a reader can think we claim that they were "Polish invasions on Russia" what is not exactly my view. :) That's the main problem and Ghirlandajo's insults and his weak explanations afterwards that he was understood wrongly (yeah, right) only make finding a good solution more difficult. Best, aegis maelstrom δ 21:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - hasn't actually Ghirlandajo broken 3Rev rule? a.m.

Well I agree that the first item can barely be considered an "invasion of Russia", and in a brief search I can't find any web pages that call it that. Whether it reflects a Russian POV is arguable; lots of things have been called Russia(n) in English-language historiography. But disambiguation pages are pretty devoid of POV. They don't endorse a name for something, they are an interface element which tries to capture all the somethings which may be called by a particular name; and links to disambiguation pages should be bypassed—we can bicker over the POV issues in the articles themselves. Whether the semi-mythical events of 1018 can be called an "invasion of Russia" by someone—in this context, who cares?

Whether Ghirlandajo was rude? I try to ignore it most of the time. —Michael Z. 2005-11-23 21:47 Z

Gigantic waste of time

Let this disambig be, although 120 Google hits doesn't prove this concept is popular, it's definelty not worth the effort of discussing it. For a tiny disambig, such a large discussion page is...foolish, simply. Go do some positive work - if youw want to play with redirects and disambigs, why not help with something like Talk:Boleslaus_II_of_Poland?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved out of user talk:Staszek Lem

You reverted my changes to this page. Please explain why. As I've mentioned there, Kievan Rus is not Russia, which was formed several centuries later, out of part of Rus only, which was, additionally, not subject to the said invasion of 1018, which concerned lands that are Ukraine now. Do you disagree with these basic historical facts? As far as I know, reverts are to be used with care. Please refrain from such actions in fields that are not your expertise. If you do not provide any convincing arguments for your revert, I will reintroduce my changes. Yours, Heresson (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Heresson: - this is a disambiguation page, i.e., a page for navigation between articles. If something was called in publications "invasion of Russia" then it is listed here. Please keep in mind that in English language the word Rus is routinely translated as Russia. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference if it's a page or disambiguation page. A page should provide proper information, and calling Kievan Rus "Russia" is not correct. A colloquial and erroneous use should not be basis of any wiki article. Especially that it's a minority one. You mentioned google search. Lets see: erroneous Kievan Russia 25 300 results, correct Kievan Rus: 764 000 results. Kievan Ruthenia alternative: 1 640. Let us add that up: 790940 altogether. Only 3,3% of people called this state "Russia". This is clearly a minority usage, compared to "Rus". Far from being "routine", which is what you claimed. And it's factually incorrect. Unless you provide a proof from a respected and up-to-date dictionary showing one of the meaning of Russia is Rus, or from a respected up-to-date (that is not from before the 70s or so) encyclopaedia using "Kievan Russia" instead, or apart from, Kievan Rus, I will re-introduce my changes. If you, however, produce some actual evidence to back up your claim, I will simply add a description to this disambiguation page mentioning that while a minority calls it Russia, it was actually Rus. But this would clutter the page, so I think deleting this link is a better choice. Also for other reasons: calling Rus/Ruthenia "Russia" can be seen as perpetuating 19th century Russian cultural imperialism towards Belarusians and Ukrainians and Rusyns, as well as it is making people believe that Russia is a direct (and only) heritor of the Kievan Rus. Which is misleading. Yours, Heresson (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not see the difference, then you probably have to learn Wikipedia rules better. It does not matter that "Rus" is not Russia. I know this rather well. The point is that one may find them used synonymously regardless google count ratios, which, by the way, may be highly misleading. As for "up-to-date dictionaries", this is irrelevant. People read old books as well and must know the terminology used there. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was a lazy one. Instead of just deleting my change, you could have edited this page in order to make it less misleading. I will do it now. If you do know that Rus is not Russia, you could have added this info there, to avoid confusion. Sorry, but one may find many things used, which does not make them correct. Please provide me with examples of books using "Polish invasion of Russia" to describe 1018 expedition, if you claim there are some. Perhaps there are - I don't know. You suggest there are some, so provide a proof for your claim. Google ratios may be misleading of course, but why do you think they are misleading in this very case? Do you have any better idea to check which expression is more often used? If so, provide it. Because as of yet, you do not provide any constructive input. Your claims that current usage is not more important than antiquated one remains your own opinion. Also, according to disambiguation pages' rules, the main link should be put on top, which was not respected in this case. Yours, Heresson (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Boleslau ... invaded Russia" Staszek Lem (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]