User talk:Vlad fedorov/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Vlad fedorov! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini 07:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Welcome!

Hello, Vlad fedorov/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! Alex Bakharev 07:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at EEML

Uvy, this joke is not very helpful in the discussion - and that is an understatement. I suggest you delete it - or switch it to Piotrus' talk page, with a link to his EEML remark.

I see now that Radek is allowed to call people insane, whereas I got a warning (the first warning I ever got on English Wikipedia) for comparing Piotrus to a financial institution. I suppose Radek, as one of the accused, is allowed a lot of leeway on that page. Still, KnightLago did warn people not to question others, and you seem to be doing precisely that versus Radek.

Please, do not think I am lecturing you, I am just afraid that we will indeed be looked down on as hyenas attacking the mortally wounded. Let us be better than them, anything else is going to hurt Russavia or hinder with the fulfilment of the need felt by almost all arbitrators now to let Piotrus continue write articles but keep him out of, well whatever he has been doing too much of lately. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Miss Fortuna has ugly bottom when she turns to Party leader with it.Vlad fedorov (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bereza

Hi Vlad, there is a number of controversial subjects which you used to edit together with our senior Polish editors, keeping the POV balance in check. I hope that in the coming year, you won’t be tempted to take unfair advantage of the fact that they are on an involuntary leave from Eastern Europe now. Poland and Belarus are sovereign countries with their Soviet affiliations fading away into history. The same can be said about Russia, and its Soviet past. There’s no advantage in misrepresenting our mutual interests especially, that there’s nobody there anymore to argue your point. That’s why, I would love to form a common front with you to deal with historical controversies, such as Bereza Kartuska prison, for example.

I noticed, you moved the article from "prison" to "concentration camp" explaining in your edit summary that "Belarusian textbooks on history, as well as number of Foreign sources, unanimously refer to it as concentration camp." -- I checked the Google books. Please see: State Archives of Brest Region | Archives of Belarus. Quote: "The Archive holds the founds of the Bereza Kartuska prison camp, which was created by the Polish government in 1934 in the Polesie voivodeship... (archives.gov.by/eng/index.php?id=872100)[1] I think, that the title "Bereza Kartuska prison" (in accordance with both Polish and Belarusian Archives) would have been a lot more neutral in this instance. And also, the numbers quoted from the Soviet sources would have to be checked for their reliability, because of how controversial they sound. Would you be willing to work with me on that one? --Poeticbent talk 18:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Ryszard, I strongly urge you for the first time in your life (as an "expert" in Polish history) to read the article on Biaroza Kartuska in Polish Wikipedia. I would like especially ask you to copy into English Wikipedia the fourth Section describing the treatment of prisoners, which was created on the basis of Polish commission report created in 1939. I believe that intentional starving of people and forced meaningless labor are very akin to the methods used in Auschwitz III, the only thing missing is gas chambers and classic music orchestra playing Frederic Chopin.

I would like also remind you of the existence of those unpatriotic Polish historians who name it as concentration camp like Agnieszka Knyt and Tadeusz Piotrowski, also Polish nobel prize winner Czesław Miłosz, prof Timothy Snyder from Yale University as very NPOVish stated here in Polish Wikipedia.

Other sources: I would cite them in Polish, at your permission:

„Gazeta Polska” 1934, czerwiec. Fragment artykułu usprawiedliwiającego powstanie obozu odosobnienia.

"Obozy koncentracyjne. Tak. Dlaczego? Dlatego, że widać owych osiem lat pracy nad wielkością Polski, osiem lat przykładu i osiem lat osiągnięć, osiem lat krzepnięcia — nie wystarczyło dla wszystkich. Pomyślcie tylko: jest tu wśród nas człowiek, który zamordował. Z tego, co wiemy o zamachu zdaje się nie ulegać wątpliwości, że nie był sam, że nie sam przygotowywał zabójstwo".

„Wielka Polska”, 1934, listopad 18. Treść wystąpienia posłów prawicowych w sprawie powołania i funkcjonowania obozu odosobnienia w Berezie Kartuskiej.

„Bito więzionych przy każdej sposobności; bito na korytarzach obozu, kiedy więzieni biegli na rozkaz policji, bito przy pracy, kiedy wycieńczeni totalnemi warunkami odżywiania i pomieszczenia więźniowie nie mogli sprostać ciężkiemu wysiłkowi fizycznemu. Bicie to nie stanowiło wyjątku, gdyż było wykonywaniem zasad postępowania i postanowione przez władze obozu. I tak zaraz po przywiezieniu pierwszej partji uwięzionych podinspektor Greffner, w ich obecności, zwrócił się do policjantów z poleceniem, aby „walili prosto w łeb”, w razie, jeżeli uznają to za potrzebne. Nadto jeden z zastępujących p. Greffnera komisarzy policji, przyjmując nową partię uwięzionych, odezwał się do nich: „Świat nie widział tego, co my wam urządzimy”.

„List z obozu koncentracyjnego” — ulotka kolportowana nielegalnie w środowiskach lewicowych (brak daty i miejsca publikacji — prawdopodobnie przełom 1934 i 1935 roku).

"Celem obozu izolacyjnego w Berezie Kartuskiej jest — według oświadczenia jego komendanta Grefnera17 — bicie fizyczne i moralne aresztantów. „Dla więźnia opuszczającego Berezę, będą tylko dwie drogi — na cmentarz lub do szpitala”.

Warszawa, 1935, październik. Rezolucja konferencji stowarzyszeń demokratycznych w sprawie amnestii dla więźniów politycznych i zlikwidowania obozu w Berezie Kartuskiej.

"1. Zebrani na konferencji zwołanej przez Ligę Obrony Praw Człowieka i Obywatela w dniu 16 października 1935 roku delegaci niżej podpisanych stowarzyszeń oraz działacze społeczni wyrażają protest przeciwko [złemu] traktowaniu więźniów politycznych, pozbawianiu ich najprymitywniejszych praw, ustawicznemu moralnemu i fizycznemu wyniszczaniu, wysuwają żądanie całkowitej niezwłocznej amnestii dla więźniów politycznych, protestują przeciwko systemowi nieludzkiego znęcania się nad więźniami Berezy Kartuskiej, przeciwko bezprawiu, jakiego wyrazem jest samo istnienie obozu dla internowanych, i domagają się niezwłocznego zlikwidowania tzw. miejsca odosobnienia w Berezie Kartuskiej, jak również uchylenia rozporządzenia Pana Prezydenta Rzeczypospolitej o miejscu odosobnienia".

I really appreciate Polish wikipedia article on this concentration camp, because it shows the essence of EE mailing list members activities in English WP, their sources distortion and political agenda advancement. This shows the difference between common Poles and Polish radical nationalists advancing their personal views in encyclopedia.

I also would like you to stop the harrasment initiated by banned Radeksz who was asking me to prove that Western Belarus was occupied. Now, as far as I understand, you and Loosmark require sources for concentration camps, despite them being before your noses? What I really find ironic is that the sources which name Western Belarus occupation by Poland as occupation are used in articles like Soviet Invasion of Poland.

The article on Biaroza Kartuska concentration camp would be of course developed by me on the basis of abovementioned and numerous other sources. Please note that here I cited sources other than Belarusian and Russian. Imagine what is written in them.

Belarusian historic treatment of Biaroza Kartuska as concentration camp is more than developed. I hoped that you and Loosmark in good faith, without usual Polish cover-ups like in Jedwabne cases, would agree to the renaming of the article. But I see that you and Loosmark, who are Poles and who undoubtedly could read Polish article on Biaroza Kartuska, are planning the game that happened in EEML. I warn you, it would end badly for you. Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that user Loosmark moved the article back to "prison" without my knowledge. Assume good faith. I think we can drop the unnecessary references to ArbCom in our discussion, because my offer of cooperation was genuine. I'm not an expert in history (you're right), but I do care for a balanced coverage of our joint Polish-Ukrainian history for the English readership. My main concern is the presence of Soviet sources from the darkest times of Cold War, in your edit of the article lead.[2] This needs to be looked into, for a possible lack of reliability. Btw, the article in Polish Wikipedia is a good starting point for further analysis I think. --Poeticbent talk 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ryszard, if Polish own estimates which are in Polish WP article on Bereza Kartuska amount to 16 000 prisoners, why Soviet source "from dark time" numbering 10 000 have to be rechecked as unreliable? Isn't it funny now that Soviet source shows smaller figures than POlish one? Ok, let us imagine that Soviet source gives 24 000. Then what? If it prevents citing of Polish source claiming 12 000?

If you are afraid of propaganda, which was equally emanating from both Polish and Soviet sides, why not to input more POV's from other sources?

I really don't understand yours and Piotrus problems with Soviet sources, perhaps we should equally remove all equivalent Polish sources, among all telling of Pilsudski as "opposing" nazism? Because these Polish sources come exactly from dark Polish defenzywa time, when every Western Belarusian was suspected communist and traitor. What is the difference between Polish and Soviet propaganda? I hope you know what Zydokomuna is, as a brilliant example of Polish propaganda.

I could suggest you the following tool which is usually employed by all post-Soviet historians in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine - consult different sources. I had been studying history of Belarus after three textbooks (one - communist era textbook, second - Belarusian nationalist textbook, third - golden middle author). Although it was burdensome for me as a pupil, currently I realize that I have an advantage over younger generation which studied Belarus history after the sole textbook.

Unfortunately, in Belarusian schools starting from 1996 only one textbook is available and gone are those lovely 1990-1995 times, when each new school year you had another textbook.

Please don't treat what I write there as biting. In fact I was never interested in content creation in those areas, but Polish history bias in those topics touching Western Belarus is crossing any imaginable limits in English WP. Even Polish WP is more neutral. Vlad fedorov (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, about the sources from the Cold War era. Honestly, I don't think, there's an easy answer. For example, Polish rescue of Jews during the Holocaust, was missing from the communist literature for almost half a century due to state policy. Restoring balance in Wikipedia can look like a Herculean task at times. I'm not sure, if I can deal with that sort of thing under the circumstances. There are other subjects as well, which draw my interest around here.
P.S.: I think we're going to have to allow at least a month to pass (following ArbCom), before we can start assessing the present situation from a new perspective. It's all too fresh in my mind right now. We're suppose to benefit from the ruling in terms of improved editing environment, but my main concern is that we at least try to present ourselves to the world as one conjoined region of the European theatre. That's because the average English reader would not be able to follow our dialog, which was best shown through ArbCom's little interest in our content disagreements, at the end. I hope, you can agree with me here. --Poeticbent talk 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ryszard, we cannot "present ourselves to the world as one conjoined region of the European theatre". Belarus is Belarus, and Poland is Poland. It would always be so. Belarusian vision of its own history, would always differ from Polish vision of Belarusian history. I guess Polonization is not what you typically do to your sasiedzi, countrymen, brothers, and sisters. The reason for which "we cannot" is a new wave of radicalized renaissance partiotism in Poland, Romania and Baltics, which tries its best at rewriting the history to the point where not only Russians, but other nations find this unacceptable. And I think you would understand that I am more than onest here. Belarusians who had suffered a lot, lot, lot more from Russians than Poles and Balts taken altogether, and have much more larger scores with Russia, never radicalize or use these sorrow histories of the past as a waived flag of their national rebirth. Ukraine has taken your steps and began Holodomor/OUN campaign. Just compare how many people from Western Belarus were repressed after its reunification with Belarus with a number of Balts deported to Siberia or repressed in other way after WW II. You guys would look funny then with couples thousands of people.

I had visited, by the way, Hungary in 2003, and find that Hungarians and Czech people are not radicalized unlike Poles and Balts.

Please explain how Cold War relates to the estimates of Bereza Kartuska prisoners in Soviet sources? Poland was a Soviet sattelite in Cold War. How Cold War affected prisoners estimates? Contrary to that, because Poland was Soviet ally-sattelite, Soviet history was ommitting from textbooks and silencing unpleasant things committed by Poles, like polonization, messianic Polish idea as a forepost of catholicism in Slav world, Poland lost competition with Moscow over unification of Slav's world under their rule. You would never find anything on Polish shauvinism and Bereza Kartuska in Soviet textbook on Belarus history, for example. I tell you, Soviet sources are more favorable to Poland, than post-Soviet. It's a question of time, when you would realize it. Just try reading Karamzin classic pre-revolution history of Russia. They are far from favorable in estimates of Poland.

On timeperiods. Look, don't get me wrong, but neither you, nor me could establish timeperiods there. I would expect that from now you would try to answer my questions raised by me on the talk page of Bereza Kartuska, especially my point about original research phrase in the article which claims that Russian Soviet propoganda was trying its best to present this concentration camp as an evidence of Polish Fascism. I just compared this phrase with what written in Polish WP article, and what is writtent actually in the Polish sources Sleszynski, and I think that some Polish colleagues falsified and played unfair game, hoping that nobody reads Polish. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bereza and Gulag. Polish Fascism. Wikipedia. Truth. Xx236 (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish article presents mostly a Polish nationalistic POV. Happy cooperation with Polish nationalists! Xx236 (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Czesc Xx236, a friend of Piotrus, the Banned. You have come to my page to try to provoke me or my friends against me? Merry Xmas, Z Nowym Rokiem, lol. Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]