Jump to content

Talk:Union of Active Struggle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

terms - terrorism

[edit]

Violence is by far a broader term then terrorism. The controversy of the old regime cooperating with someone who resorted to terrorism is hidden when the term terrorism is replaced by a broader "violence". Street demonstrations with clashes against the Police force are also "violence". Political assassinations, armed robberies and going to Japan with an offer to start and coordinate the sabotage terror campaign is much narrower than broad violence. Please don't weaselize the terms and justify "liberating" in the text by a wide range of mainstream sources that use the term in such context. --Irpen 05:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please think about WP:NPOV. The term 'terrorism' is controversial and its applicable usage is discussed at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. The usage as you propose is POVed, not to mention unreferenced.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I explaiend why voilence is inapplicable. The usage of term is referenced. If you think that actions I listed above are not terrorism, start from terrorism article. --Irpen 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also explained why terrorism is not applicable, giving you our style guide page, and reminding you of NPOV. If you think it is not the case, then please go over various articles related to the Bolshevik party, starting fromt he bio of Stalin, and note that their actions were that of a terroristic organization, and that Stalin and others were terrorists (they robbed trains and assasinated people, too).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen continues his highly biased edits, disregarding all historic references. Austrian rule was quite beneficial to Poles in later half of XIX century, instead though we have the usual Irpen style manipulative wording of "historic enemy". Quite biased considering the fact that Austria was essentially forced by Russia to partition Poland, and contributed to development of Polish culture and political movements by granting freedoms. Not to mention the prime minister of Austria was a Pole in years 1895-1897. As to "terrorism"-I think we don't need to deal with that particular opinion of Polish resistance to occupation by Russia by Irpen. --Molobo 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although we could use a reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also relative "liberalism" of Austria is irrelevant here, it was as much against PL statehood as others) Already in 1854 ideas floated in Austria on restoring Poland together with Poland by merging Galicia with Russian occupied Poland. May I guess this are the reasons for your biased an unhistoric take on Austrian-Polish relations ? If there was a historic enemy to Polish statehood it wasn't Austria, I will let you do a historic research which country despised Poland the most out of three partitioning powers Irpen... --Molobo 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, again. I have never head of 'Austria being a historic enemy of the Polish statehood' - it was the most tolerant of the partitioning powers, and the least interested in partitions (it took part in them (2 out of 3 anyway) just because the others started them). Russian and Germany in that period, on the other hand, are well know for being enemies of the Polish statehood, and such a description would certainly be more accurate.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the trolling. Robbing banks while no doubt banditism isn't terrorism, assasinating politicians isn't terrorism (in fact they may be classified as legitimate military targets, and coordinating against a common enemy is not terrorism. I've never heard about any acts of violance carried out against the Russian population by PPS and doing so in an attempt to influance Russian rulers would be completely fuitile. It is crystal clear that person either knows nothing about the subject or is actually deliberately trolling. I'm afraid that from looking at other edits I have to conclude it's the later.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.28.144 (talk • contribs)

Why Austria-relevant info

[edit]

I think that the fact that the alliance was made with the most freedom giving power like Austria which granted Poles freedoms not comperable to harsh discrimination found in Prussia or Russian Empire is notable. We should mention and reference this. As to "historical enemy", the term brought by Irpen...Well since he brought it up in the article, we can let it stay but reference it to the proper country rather then to Austria. --Molobo 01:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Poland during partitions is one of the areas we have left underdeveloped, and it shows. We certainly need a good article comparing situation of Poland under all three partitions. For now, I found one refs which can be used to back the claim that AH was quite tolerant: [1] (see footnote).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subversion ?

[edit]

In regards to latest Irpen's edit which inserted the word "subversion" According to Wiki :subversion something much more surreptitious, such as eroding the basis of belief in the status quo or setting people against each other. Yes I am quite sure that the there was need to erode the basis of status quo or set Poles against Russian Empire ;) But seriously it has no place here, the Russian Empire engaged in ethnic cleansing of Polish population by deporting whole Polish noble families from their lands into Russian interior, banned Polish language, its soldiers engaged in mass murder of thousands of Polish civilians. Subversion was hardly needed for Polish population to oppose the Russian rule and the terror it brought to daily life in occupied Poland. However I doubt Irpen will take any effort to neutralise his edits, I just hope the next step won't be adding "treason" as an act attributed to Poles who wanted to free themselfs from Russian yoke.--Molobo 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw no better place to redirect the term [[Subversion|subversive destruction]], his program that even Japanese, who were in the full-blown war with Russia, turned down. Please point a better link if you know one. --Irpen 01:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Irpen. The Japanese didn't turn him down.They didn't want to get involved fully into national liberation of people so far away and all of his proposals weren't realised, but they did provide funds for the struggling movement aimed against common enemy. --Molobo 01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less the P. expected, but you are correct. I think that subversion is ok - it covers various clandestine operations designed to undermine Russian control over Poland. On the other hand, I removed 'political assasination' - I am not aware of P. being involved in any. As for the 1887 incident, please see P. bio's, we have references that he was innocent (he was arrested for being a brother of a person who was involved in that plan - a nice example of Russian Empire justice (although I am actually suprised they were not executed?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Zerkalo Nedeli

[edit]

I worked it through babelfish and it gave a well structured translation. Unfortunetely it seems the article is highly sensationalistic ("Joseph Stalin the namesake of Pilsudski" is just one example) but completely out of touch with realities of Polish politics in regards to Russia and Austria, with particular ignorance towards the Austrian issue. It writes for example How could this patriot, as Pilsudskiy, to collaborate with the historical enemies of his country, which is completely absurd considering that Austria wanted to restore Poland and since 60s granted Poles autonomy, and Poles declared their allegience to Austrian Emperor, who himself posed in Polish national clothing. Due this unreliability it can hardly be seen as neutral or usefull source in regards to issues of Polish and Austrian relations.All in all however an interesting article on Ukrainian view of the events. --Molobo 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Zerkalo Nedeli is not an academic newspaper, but rather a Ukrainian equivalent of Wprost. It stands to reason quite a few of its articles would be POVed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

An editor has proposed moving Association of Armed Struggle here. However these two organizations are different. So, what to do? Please comment at Talk:Association of Armed Struggle#Requested move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish "związek" can mean "association," "union" or "federation." The word "walka" can mean "fight," "combat," "battle" or "struggle." Both organizations were clearly of a military nature; I therefore propose that:
"Związek Walki Czynnej" (founded in 1908) should be "Association for Active Combat";
"Związek Walki Zbrojnej" (founded in November 1939) should be "Association for Armed Combat." Nihil novi (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they are different and should not be merged. Naming is a different issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

The article (Polish: Związek Walki Czynnej) was just moved from "Union for Armed Struggle" to "Association for Active Combat". AAC doesn't seem to be used in English: [2]; UAC is: [3]. Same holds true if we replace for with of ([4], [5]. I am thus reverting the move due to WP:NC - we should use existing names if possible, not invent better translations (personally I don't see much difference between those two).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "armed" for "active" (czynna) is both incorrect and is leading to confusion between the 1908 and 1939 organizations. Nihil novi (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could check which one is used more often for which one, or use Polish names and created an English disambig for both. Creating our own translations under names not used in English literature is not the right way to solve this, unfortunately. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both organizations are "Związek" in Polish, but in the current Wikipedia articles one is rendered as "Association" and the other as "Union," without obvious reason.
"Association" is probably the better term to use, because it is the more unequivocal: "union" can be a labor union, a political union ("European Union") or the act of "uniting." Nihil novi (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that both these związki were military organizations, "combat" seems the more appropriate term than "struggle," which is too passive and smacks of "jihad." Nihil novi (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but the fact remains that English works use the less accurate and more confusing titles. We cannot invent our own, better translations if a more common name exists in literature :( That's the downside of being an encyclopedia, not an original research outlet. Shall we ask for a WP:30? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea. The "scholarly" writings on the subject, to the extent that they are reflected in the existing Wikipedia titles, are FUBAR. Nihil novi (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how FUBAR'd our sources are, by Wikipedia convention, we use the most commonly used English names for the subjects of our articles. So, if the English name is FUBAR'd, we have to be FUBAR'd too, unfortunately, because that's what people will be looking for when they look up the organization. We just need to find more English sources (scholarly or mainstream media) that mention these, and we'll get a better idea of what is going on.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. These organizations are not a major specialty of mine, but I doubt that you will find many publications mentioning their names in English translation. We may then be stuck with inadequate versions on the strength of misrenderings by a few incompetent individuals. Nihil novi (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, some more searching:

  • "Union for Armed Struggle"+1908: 3
  • "Union for Active Struggle"+1908: 22
  • "Union for Armed Struggle"+1939: 117
  • "Union of Armed Struggle"+1908: 4
  • "Union of Active Struggle"+1908: 47
  • "Union of Armed Struggle"+1939: 129
  • "Union for Armed Combat"+1908: 0
  • "Union for Active Combat"+1908: 1
  • "Union for Armed Combat"+1939: 2
  • "Union of Armed Combat"+1908: 0
  • "Union of Active Combat"+1908: 0
  • "Union of Armed Combat"+1939: 4
  • "Association for Armed Struggle"+1908: 0
  • "Association for Active Struggle"+1908: 3
  • "Association for Armed Struggle"+1939: 13
  • "Association of Armed Struggle"+1908: 0
  • "Association of Active Struggle"+1908: 4
  • "Association for Armed Struggle"+1939: 13
  • "Association for Armed Combat"+1908: 0
  • "Association for Active Combat"+1908: 0
  • "Association for Armed Combat"+1939: 0
  • "Association of Armed Combat"+1908: 0
  • "Association of Active Combat"+1908: 0
  • "Association of Armed Combat"+1939: 0
  • "Związek Walki Czynnej"+Polish: 1
  • "Związek Walki Czynnej"+Poland: 630 (but I think it's some kind of error, the works seem Polish)
  • "Związek Walki Zbrojnej"+Polish: 440
  • "Związek Walki Zbrojnej"+Poland: 800

Based on the above, I think that the 1939 organization should be moved to "Union of Armed Struggle", and the 1908, to "Union of Active Struggle", unless we want to move them to Polish original names? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_of_Active_Struggle&oldid=1203830956"