Misplaced Pages

Talk:Soviet partisans: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:59, 28 April 2020 editSam1370 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,921 edits →Biased contentTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:32, 12 March 2024 edit undoOpalYosutebito (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers159,143 editsm →top: fixing/removing unknown parameters across Misplaced Pages using AutoWikiBrowserTag: AWB 
(40 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to toc}} {{skip to toc}}
{{talk header|index=yes|search=yes}} {{talk header|index=yes|search=yes}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=e-e}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|class=B|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B {{WikiProject Military history|class=B
|old-peer-review=yes
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B1=no |B1=no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
Line 20: Line 19:
|WWII=yes |WWII=yes
|Polish=yes}} |Polish=yes}}
{{WikiProject Poland|class=B|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Poland|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 31: Line 30:
|archive=Talk:Soviet partisans/Archive %(counter)d |archive=Talk:Soviet partisans/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}

== Use of controversial sources ==

One or two sources have been cited in this article with the consequence and perhaps the intent of making the Soviet partisans look like bad guys.

Among them are are Poland's Marek Chodakiewicz and Bogdan Musial, who are described as ethno-nationalist authors: "The narrative of judeo-communism is perhaps one of the most active and alive in the extreme right-wing nationalistic political and cultural circles. It also constitutes one of the premises for historical thinking characteristic of the new and growing ethno-nationalistic historiography that has emerged in the post-1989 period. Its leading representatives are Marek J. Chodakiewicz, Piotr Gontarczyk, Leszek Zebrowski, Bogdan Musial, the late Tomasz Strzembosz, and Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski. - cited in p.163 of ''Rethinking Poles and Jews: Troubled Past, Brighter Future.'' It may be helpful to describe in a few sentences how certain elements in Poland feel about historical politics related to Poland's neighbors like Russia, Belarus and Ukriane, but relying on them for a factual summary of events and analyses regarding armed combatants from neighboring countries with which Poland has had a rivalry is problematic and will inevitably result in distortions and falsifications.

And then we have one Alexander Gogun, who comes across as fringe. Homeboy doesn't even live in Russia, but is a Berlin resident and has works published in Kiev. The guy is silly. He argues that the partisan movement in Ukraine was not a grassroots, spontaneous phenomenon, but was imposed by Stalin, god of lighting and thunder, hundreds of kilometers away in Moscow. We literally have thousands of scholarly books, articles, memoirs from Russian people about the partisans. And this Gogun guy does not reflect the mainstream.
*
*
*Gogun's work in Russia is described as, ] (]) 01:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

*], ] and ] are all respectable if minor historians as can be seen from their pages. Their works get some good and some bad reviews. Gogun doesn't have a wiki page yet but carried his doctoral research on Soviet partisans while at USHMM . You need more than criticism from some random Russian portals ], ] and ] to make us reconsider their use. Particularly considering that recent Russian scholarship is ultra nationalistic and censored/directed by Putin and Russian government, not much coming from Russia can be considered reliable these days. Through yes, Poland is veering that way too, so to some degree I agree with criticism of some of Polish authors, but it is not that bad yet - at least there are dissenting views in Poland (in Russia, not anymore). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 13:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
::Gogun is controversial and doesn't reflect the consensus from Russia or Belarus regarding partisans - the guy can't even get many of his books published in Russia because no one wants to read them. Chodakiewicz and Musial are ethno-nationalist Polish authors. They are not reliable and don't possess the qualifications to write about Soviet partisans. Your dismissal of the majority of Russian sources regarding Soviet partisans is flawed and reveals a bias on your part, as far more research has been done about Soviet partisans and Russian history in general by Russians than by Poles, Americans or any other nationality. What you said about Russia simply is not true. ] (]) 16:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
:::These academic reviews of Gogun's work are quite positive. The review in the Journal of Slavic Military studies has some criticism of the work but is overall quite positive (and this journal is certainly a gold standard for establishing the reliability of a source on the Eastern Front).:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13518046.2017.1271693?casa_token=818iod0y1nEAAAAA:I5WjcnSevoV7FaWbctB32O8TKmQ0bCYiCr4E07YViZ0ircjk7pJmGzk1aYT7d-FtYRUEQHYgtw
https://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8072
:::: debunks and exposes Gogun's work: "The progression of the book of Gogun is based on the ubambiguous, clearly, explicitly negative evaluation of the partisan movement and evolving from evaluation of a unit to another in the descriptions of cruelty, banditry, and moral decay of partisans. The book is characterized by a special selection of the source base: almost all of the evidence selected by the author are summaries of German occupation forces, Nazi organizations, Ukrainian nationalists, OUN. This source base is introduced by the author as a refutation of "Soviet stamps", as a counterargument to the thesis of the significant success and partisans' role in liberation... The stated purpose of the study repeatedly articulated by the author: "debunking the myth of the partisan movement in Ukraine during World War II."--- even Gogun himself essentially concedes that his work is not mainstream. He made it a mission to challenge the consensus in Russia+Belarus regarding the successes and popular support enjoyed by the Soviet partisans. And reviews of his works portray Gogun as hostile to the partisans. There is room in this article for Gogun, but he needs to be clearly attributed and he solely speaks for himself, not the majority of historians] (]) 19:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
:::::Who is V. E. Tcherniavskaya and what journal did she publish in? In either case, as noted before, any criticism of things not fitting with the current Russian government POV published in Russia are of dubious academic integrity, as they may be state-ordered. If you want to criticize Gogun's work, please find a critical review of his work published outside Russia, preferably in an English-language journal. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 02:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Huh? Are you trying to steer this discussion towards Putin? What evidence do you have that the sources I cited were published as a result of a government order? You're basically saying that no mainstream Russian source on the partisans can be trusted. The Russian government does not have anything to do with the topic and discussion at hand, which is about a period in history that was well over 70 years ago. Russian scholars as well as scholars in Belarus and Ukraine have advanced theses and arguments about the Soviet partisans, and your issue is that you don't like what they said. Russians have their own opinions and their thoughts are not the product of some all-mighty, all-encompassing power of the Russian government. In Russia, I love how you dismiss the discrediting of Alexander Gogun as merely material coming from some random Russian portals. , along with many other Russian language web sources. Gogun himself clearly and unambiguously identifies himself as challenging the established historical consensus in Russia and the mission of his books are described by him as seeking to debunk what he calls myths. His views are fringe and while he is welcome to a spot in this article in the form of a summary on the historiography of dissident views about the partisans, it is controversial and not okay to give him a prominent spotlight as though he represents a consensus on this topic. Musial and Chodakiewicz should only be mentioned in a summary of right-wing Polish nationalist historiography on the partisans.
:::::::You inserted Alexander Statiev in this article and depict his journal article as a long, laundry list of alleged crimes committed by partisans. But it seems to me that you did not fairly and properly represent his work. In the very same article, on p.1549, Statiev wrote: ''Among all regular and irregular forces that operated in the occupied territories, partisans were the least lethal actor as far as the civilians were concerned. UPA killed many times more civilians uninvolved in collaboration with the enemy; it routinely attacked peasants hostile or indifferent to its agenda, and conducted ethnic genocide following well-articulated instructions designed by their top leaders...There is a big difference between the typical attitude of Soviet top partisan leaders when they heard of indiscriminate violence—a reprimand of the culprits—and OUN’s direct orders to kill all civilians belonging to a certain group, such as that issued by Ananii Zakoshtui, head of OUN in Volhynia: ‘Liquidate all Poles and Reds in these regions as soon as possible’. No partisan agency at any level ever gave orders like this. '''AK also killed more civilians than the partisans did'''. Given the savagery of war on the Eastern Front, it is striking how few civilians suffered at partisans’ hands as compared to those exterminated by nationalists, let alone Nazi collaborators''] (]) 03:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
⚫ ::::::::Yes, modern Russian sources are problematic. Ex. or , , etc. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 04:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
::::::::: Chodakiewicz (SPLC designated twice) and Musial are clear no-gos for anything unattributed - in histiography sources they are described as the extreme specturm of ethno-nationalism, and works by both have faced some rather scathing reviews. I would also argue against Russian language sources. We're the English encyclopedia, there are (I think!) high-quality English language sources out there - which per ] we should prefer - definitely for unattributed use (for deciding NPOV slant in our own voice) - The moment we use a German, Polish, or Russian language source - the ability of editors to participate in discussion of the source is hampered. For attributed use - this is less of a problem - but for discussing NPOV in unattributed use - it is.] (]) 07:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
::::::::::Anything controversial is best attributed. If Chodakiewicz or Musial are used to source something controversial, I concur they should be attributed. Ditto for Russian sources (or any other language) - IF they are reliable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 15:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


== Biased content == == Biased content ==


This article suffers from some challenges. I may be wrong, though it's quite possible that this article has been infiltrated by ethno-nationalist schools of thought, particularly from Poland and Finland, seeking to portray the Soviet partisans as bad guys. The sections on Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania are about as long, if not longer, than the sections covering the Republic of Russia and certain people who edited this article have sought reduce its scope to a rap sheet of alleged crimes committed by partisans. The article gives the impression that the Soviet partisan movement was as prevalent in Poland and Finland as in Russia. Leonid Grenkevich on p.234 of his book summarizes: "...partisan fighting affected many regions but was particularly prevalent in German occupied Belorussia, the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk and Orel Districts of the Russian Republic, and in the Ukraine. This partisan warfare on so vast a scale was unprecedented in Russian history." So, if the Soviet partisan movement was most prevalent in the Belarus, Ukraine, and the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk and Orel provinces of Russia then I feel that the article should primarily concentrate on those regions. But this article concentrates extraordinarily heavily on Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania - is it because this article has been infiltrated by ethno-nationalist interests from and sympathetic to those countries? and even in but curiously this article doesn't have devote a single word to that fact. The article is in need of fundamental revisions] (]) 01:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC) This article suffers from some challenges. I may be wrong, though it's quite possible that this article has been infiltrated by ethno-nationalist schools of thought, particularly from Poland and Finland, seeking to portray the Soviet partisans as bad guys. The sections on Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania are about as long, if not longer, than the sections covering the Republic of Russia and certain people who edited this article have sought reduce its scope to a rap sheet of alleged crimes committed by partisans. The article gives the impression that the Soviet partisan movement was as prevalent in Poland and Finland as in Russia. Leonid Grenkevich on p.234 of his book summarizes: "...partisan fighting affected many regions but was particularly prevalent in German occupied Belorussia, the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk and Orel Districts of the Russian Republic, and in the Ukraine. This partisan warfare on so vast a scale was unprecedented in Russian history." So, if the Soviet partisan movement was most prevalent in the Belarus, Ukraine, and the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk and Orel provinces of Russia then I feel that the article should primarily concentrate on those regions. But this article concentrates extraordinarily heavily on Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania - is it because this article has been infiltrated by ethno-nationalist interests from and sympathetic to those countries? and even in but curiously this article doesn't have devote a single word to that fact. The article is in need of fundamental revisions] (]) 01:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
:Well they certainly were not good guys if that's what you're asking. They were hostile towards Polish, Finnish, etc. forces. -] (]) 20:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
::You mean, the polish nazi police and the finnish collaborators? ] (]) 18:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
:While some content may be missing, the bulk of revisions should focus on removing Soviet/Russian unreliable propaganda sources, and verifying the facts with independent Western scholarly work. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 10:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC) :While some content may be missing, the bulk of revisions should focus on removing Soviet/Russian unreliable propaganda sources, and verifying the facts with independent Western scholarly work. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 10:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:The article isn't protected -- if you feel some things are missing, then add them in. ] (]) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC) :The article isn't protected -- if you feel some things are missing, then add them in. ] (]) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


==RfPP refactor and 1RR notice==
== "Soviet-occupied Poland" ==

This section seeks to obfuscate the reader as to what Polish territory was/is. Of the Polish provinces transferred to the Soviet Union: Western Ukraine was estimated to have a population that was 65% Ukrainian, while Western Belarus was estimated to have a population that was 78% Belarusian - these were not even ethnically Polish territories, although they were a part of Poland from around 1920 until September 1939. Lvov was a part of Poland from 1918-1939 and since 1939 has been a part of Ukraine. I recommend that Ukraine and Belarus in this article be defined per their 1939-1940 borders rather than the borders preceding World War II.] (]) 02:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
: I agree - considering the area was annexed by the USSR in 1939 (and hence - not occupied), and was ceded by Poland to the USSR in the ] - calling this "Soviet-occupied Poland" is incorrect. Furthermore, outside of Polish ethnonationalist sources, there is very little use of this irredentist terminology (around the "Kresy" in general) - these areas were annexed by Poland for a very brief period between 1921-1939, and Poles were one of many ethnicities present (and not a majority). For the past 70+ years Vilnius, Novogrudok, Lviv, etc. are not referred to as Polish cities or territories.] (]) 08:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
::The term Soviet occupied Poland is correct. Until Poland agreed to border changes, this remained occupied Polish terrtiory.Majority of the population were Polish citizens irregardless of their ethnic background.Also Soviet Propaganda is inconsistant, as actually Soviets returned part of this territory, surely we don't want to claim Bialystok or Przemysl is part of Belarus or Ukraine occupied by Poland today? To sum it up-the correct term is Soviet occupied Poland both legally and par neutral sources.I agree that past 1945 Soviet occupied Poland shouldn't refer to Vilnius or Lviv but to communist Poland in post 1945 borders--] (]) 00:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::''"considering the area was annexed by the USSR in 1939"'' - lol. Is that how it works? A country declares that a part of another country is its territory and that's it? Somehow I don't think so.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 03:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::: It depends - sometimes - as in the 1921 conquest by Poland or the 1939 Soviet conquest it is accepted, sometimes not. In this particular case - sources - e.g. ''Lebedeva, N. S. (2000). The deportation of the polish population to the USSR, 1939–41. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 16(1-2), 28–45. doi:10.1080/13523270008415428'' {{tq|The deportation of the Polish population from the territories '''annexed''' in September 1939 by the Soviet Union was an integral part of Stalin's policy of destroying Poland's state system and sovietizing the western areas of the Belorussian and Ukrainian republics.}}, or ''Marples, D. R. (1994). Kuropaty: The Investigation of a Stalinist Historical Controversy. Slavic Review, 53(02), 513–523. doi:10.2307/2501303'' {{tq| Mass executions were conducted until shortly after the German invasion of the Soviet Union, and Soviet policy in areas '''annexed''' from Poland was brutal, against the Poles initially but subsequently against western Ukrainians and western Belarusians.}} - support annexed.] (]) 07:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::You're trying to draw a false equivalence between 1921 and 1939. Sorry, that's a fringe POV view. In 1921, there was a ] signed by two brand new states which didn't exist just a few years prior. In 1939 there was no treaty. I mean, there was the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement but I really hope you're not claiming that the legitimacy of Soviet "annexation" is demonstrated by the fact that the Nazis supported it. There was no treaty on the issue until Yalta and even that is somewhat arguable. And a couple cherry picked sources which happen to use the term in passing are not going to change that.Volunteer Marek 20:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::] in ''Bloodlands'' refers to it as an occupation.Volunteer Marek 20:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::] actually also calls it an occupation. As did British diplomats and governments at the time.] (]) 20:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I am fine with annexed, but logically, something is usually occupied before being annexed. Perhaps the 'occupied then annexed' would be the best phrase? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 09:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
: It was annexed almost immediately - I would go with "invaded then annexed". ] (]) 12:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:: Fine, but do we have any source for when did USSR pass any laws on annexation? Even the Soviets had to put some legal front. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 12:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::: Why would we care? If I declare that I've "annexed" Canada so what? For it to be "annexed" it has to have at least some international recognition. Which means that even in a generous view of Soviet policy, these territories weren't "annexed" until Yalta.Volunteer Marek 20:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::: See for the Soviet legal process/claims - as the state of Poland was extinguished via ], the Soviets were no longer a party to various treaties (such as Riga 1921). Then also claimed ''derelicto'' due to the Polish gvmt/military flight, a humanitarian intervention on their side in the Eastern portion of Poland, and finally by a plebiscite in Western Belarus and Western Ukraine expression the populations "voluntary choice". There are a number of different dates, but per the Soviet view the Polish state had ceased to exist (and thus, also Soviet obligations from Riga) when they invaded. ] (]) 13:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::: So... there was no such thing as "occupied Poland" during World War 2 at all? I mean, the Germans "annexed" various territories as well and/or designated them as new protectorates. Jinkins! And here I was always taught that there actually was such a thing as "occupied Poland" during World War 2. Might be some nationalist propaganda or something. No, the Nazis only "annexed" Poland. Seriously - who cares what bullshit excuses Stalin made for his occupation? Why should we give those any more credence then Hitler's excuses for the same? Volunteer Marek 20:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::: The German portion is a separate issue. As for the Soviet areas - because sources not affilated with the Polish POV generally use annexed for Western Belarus and Ukraine - e.g. Marples or Lebedeva journal articles quoted above. Why do they do so? Does not really matter - though they might be doing this since the annexation ended up being internationally recognized (such recognitions generally being retroactive) and the territories (mostly) belonging today to different countries.] (]) 01:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::''"because sources not affilated (sic) with the Polish POV "'' - Nonsense. You just made that up. Neither ] nor ] are associated with "the Polish POV" whatever the fuck that's suppose to be. And both are way more relevant than whatever you managed to find by cherry picking through the internets.] (]) 02:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::: Much of Gross's work is based on Polish archives. Snyder is commonly referred to as a "polophile" - .] (]) 03:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::: Who cares how he is "referred to"??? Is that in Misplaced Pages policy somewhere? "Oh we can't use an author in an article on Poland if he's had nice things to say about Poland, gee wiz". What kind of absurd logic is that? That's right up there with you trying to remove any Polish sources from articles on Polish history, or removing sources because of their religious affiliation. '''And of course Gross' work is based on freakin' POLISH ARCHIVES!!!!''' It's a book about '''freakin' POLISH HISTORY!!!''' What the hell is it suppose to be based on? Fijian archives? Maybe Moroccan? No, wait, I know, ancient hieroglyphs from Egypt! This is even more ridiculous than your statement about Snyder. Not to mention that one opinion piece that, once again, you cherry picked from your dredging of the internet, does NOT establish that something is "common".
::::::::Sigh. Here, here is another "Polish POV" (sic) . A whole freakin' book about "Soviet occupied Poland" right in the title. From authors you yourself love to cite. Or is this going to become another farce like with Polonsky - where he was a "reputable academic source" which you insisted we should use, until you found out that he didn't actually fit in with your POV, so you then proceeded to try and remove him from an article? ] (]) 03:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Unilateral annexation does not automatically end occupation. Occupation ends then territorial change has been is recognized by international community, usually after relevant border treaty, which in this case was signed in 1945. For example Germany formally annexed Czech territory but that period is still referred as ].--] (]) 17:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

== Extlinks ==
{{ping|K.e.coffman}} - you a couple of items on "non RS" grounds from the external links - however you left the same source in as a citation throughout the article - http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/406/262choda.html (as well as https://www.iwp.edu/papers-studies/2006/05/01/the-myth-exposed/ which seems even more sketchy and unpublished - the book review at least was published). Was this your intention?

== Be wary of Soviet era sources ==

Compare this diff, with Soviet era sources on one side, and modern research on the other: . --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 09:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

:Your reflexive dismissal and prejudice against Russian sources is not something held by actual professional scholars that specialize on this topic, and Russian sources on warfare in Crimea in 1941-1945 are clearly credible and reliable. Nazi German sources such as the observations of Erich von Manstein are also reliable and just because a source is biased doesn't mean that's inherently not trustworthy. We have this from an article appearing in a scientific journal establishing the reliability of sources that you argue should not be used:
:Taken from
:Footnote 36: "For the German view of warfare in the Crimea in 1941, see Klink, "Conduct of Operations"...For Soviet insight into warfare in the peninsula in 1941, see A.Basov, "Krym v Velikoi...1941-1945 (Moscow, 1987)"
:Foonote 64: "On the partisan movement in Crimea during the Second World War, see I. Vergasov, "Krymskie Tetradi" (Moscow, 1971); I. Genov "Dnevnik Partizana" (Simferopol, 1963)

:Your comment is about a book that's titled Crimea During World War II, a comprehensive account of a particular topic, one that has not been explored very much in English. Unless you can show something specifically refuting the reliability and accuracy of this particular source, it can and should be used for this article.

:The version you submitted misleadingly portrays relations with Tatars as representativen of partisan relations with civilians when in fact Russians and Ukrainians formed the majority of the region's population.


] ''']'''&#32;for a period of '''10 days''', after which the page will be automatically unprotected.<!-- Template:RFPP#full --> Converted Ed's 12-hour semi, which I don't think would have done it. Negative, ], ] — this looks like a bogus ] ECP request. To my knowledge, there is no "related content" clause as an arbitration remedy for it like there is in ]. Polish stuff is just one among many countries covered by that page. And even as a "related content" this request fails. The contested edit isn't about Poland, it's about Belarus.So, please take care not to repeat such requests here, more as a matter of principle than anything, as I don't think any admin would have granted this request — AE shy ones would have stayed away, AE experienced ones would have seen it my way. Will refactor this message on the article talk page, as this place gets archived in a flash. Will also 1RR it up. ] 11:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:You already argued above sans any logic or consistency that sources from Russia shouldn't be used in an article about Russian history, which is bizarre and prejudiced. You also selectively quoted and distorted Statiev's article, which states that "Among all regular and irregular forces that operated in the occupied territories, partisans were the least lethal actor as far as the civilians were concerned...Armia Krajowa also killed more civilians than the partisans did... Given the savagery of war on the Eastern Front, it is striking how few civilians suffered at partisans’ hands as compared to those exterminated by nationalists, let alone Nazi collaborators."] (]) 18:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
:To clarify, the contested edit isn't related to Polonization in Belarus and vice versa, ''per se.'', like some legit APL-covered Belarusian edits we've (all three of us + others) been examining a couple of months ago elsewhere. ] 12:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
::Sorry, maybe it was Ukrainian...? I forget now, but regardless, same thing. ] 14:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
::: Hi ]. You're mistaken here. That particular part of Europe '''in 1942''' was pre-war, pre-1939, occupied ], not ]. See ]. That’s why the request. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 14:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
:::: This map illustrates it well --> - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 14:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
] but 10 day protection is okay - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 14:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


:{{ec}}<small> Ugh, hate when edit conflicts make me lose everything. Forced to reconstruct more tersely (lazy).</small> I'm sorry, GCB, but "related content" ≠ "related articles." But beyond whatever arcane APL rules are being invoked, I just don't think this particular dispute calls for an indef ECP at this time. Call it my '']''. ] 14:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
*AlexanderIvanenko is very likely another ]. Previous throwaway socks that edit-warred this article include {{user|LegitimateProft}}, {{user|LegitimateProfit}} and {{user|LegitmateProfit}}. Regrettably, filing a SPI for throwaway socks is useless. --] (]) 20:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
:: ] - That's totally fine. That area of the pre-war Polish state called ] is complicated to grasp unless you dig into it. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span></small> 02:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
**FYI follow-up: AlexanderIvanenko blocked due to this SPI: ] (made a separate one because not known if YMB29 or Jacob Peters). --] (]) 17:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Agree with ] that it is a stretch to say that ] falls under ]. Even so, I still believe in the virtues of my two-month (not 12-hour) semiprotection that I had applied previously per the 3RR complaint. The three IPs who had edited recently were obviously run by the same person, so it was a case of sockuppetry. We should be able to respond to conventional socking in a proportionate manner, under regular admin authority. Though ECP might be called on if necessary, I don't perceive that it's yet necessary. ] (]) 01:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
⚫ ::::{{u|EdJohnston}}, {{u|El_C}} Just passing by to note the existence of the ] article... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 03:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
:::::Ugh! Sorry, ]. Obviously, I can't read. I've restored your original semiprotection with profuse apologies and shame.{{frown}} Thanks, but it looks I already had it watchlisted, ]. ] 03:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


== "Ukrainian partisans" listed at ] ==
== German casualties from Soviet partisans ==
]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16#Ukrainian partisans}} until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 02:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


== "Ukrainian resistance during World War II" listed at ] ==
Are there any estimates for this? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 13:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16#Ukrainian resistance during World War II}} until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 02:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:32, 12 March 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soviet partisans article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSoviet Union Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGermany Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: European / German / Polish / Russian & Soviet / World War II Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Taskforce icon
Polish military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconPoland Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biased content

This article suffers from some challenges. I may be wrong, though it's quite possible that this article has been infiltrated by ethno-nationalist schools of thought, particularly from Poland and Finland, seeking to portray the Soviet partisans as bad guys. The sections on Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania are about as long, if not longer, than the sections covering the Republic of Russia and certain people who edited this article have sought reduce its scope to a rap sheet of alleged crimes committed by partisans. The article gives the impression that the Soviet partisan movement was as prevalent in Poland and Finland as in Russia. Leonid Grenkevich on p.234 of his book summarizes: "...partisan fighting affected many regions but was particularly prevalent in German occupied Belorussia, the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk and Orel Districts of the Russian Republic, and in the Ukraine. This partisan warfare on so vast a scale was unprecedented in Russian history." So, if the Soviet partisan movement was most prevalent in the Belarus, Ukraine, and the Leningrad, Kalinin, Smolensk and Orel provinces of Russia then I feel that the article should primarily concentrate on those regions. But this article concentrates extraordinarily heavily on Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania - is it because this article has been infiltrated by ethno-nationalist interests from and sympathetic to those countries? Soviet partisans also served in Yugoslavia, and even in Italy but curiously this article doesn't have devote a single word to that fact. The article is in need of fundamental revisionsLegitmateProfit (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Well they certainly were not good guys if that's what you're asking. They were hostile towards Polish, Finnish, etc. forces. -69.121.9.199 (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
You mean, the polish nazi police and the finnish collaborators? 142.54.9.83 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
While some content may be missing, the bulk of revisions should focus on removing Soviet/Russian unreliable propaganda sources, and verifying the facts with independent Western scholarly work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The article isn't protected -- if you feel some things are missing, then add them in. sam1370 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RfPP refactor and 1RR notice

Fully protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Converted Ed's 12-hour semi, which I don't think would have done it. Negative, VM, GCB — this looks like a bogus WP:APL ECP request. To my knowledge, there is no "related content" clause as an arbitration remedy for it like there is in WP:ARBPIA4. Polish stuff is just one among many countries covered by that page. And even as a "related content" this request fails. The contested edit isn't about Poland, it's about Belarus.So, please take care not to repeat such requests here, more as a matter of principle than anything, as I don't think any admin would have granted this request — AE shy ones would have stayed away, AE experienced ones would have seen it my way. Will refactor this message on the article talk page, as this place gets archived in a flash. Will also 1RR it up. El_C 11:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the contested edit isn't related to Polonization in Belarus and vice versa, per se., like some legit APL-covered Belarusian edits we've (all three of us + others) been examining a couple of months ago elsewhere. El_C 12:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe it was Ukrainian...? I forget now, but regardless, same thing. El_C 14:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi El_C. You're mistaken here. That particular part of Europe in 1942 was pre-war, pre-1939, occupied Poland, not Belarus. See Occupation of Poland. That’s why the request. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This map illustrates it well --> - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

El_C but 10 day protection is okay - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ugh, hate when edit conflicts make me lose everything. Forced to reconstruct more tersely (lazy). I'm sorry, GCB, but "related content" ≠ "related articles." But beyond whatever arcane APL rules are being invoked, I just don't think this particular dispute calls for an indef ECP at this time. Call it my discretion. El_C 14:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
El_C - That's totally fine. That area of the pre-war Polish state called Kresy is complicated to grasp unless you dig into it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with User:El C that it is a stretch to say that Soviet partisans falls under WP:APL. Even so, I still believe in the virtues of my two-month (not 12-hour) semiprotection that I had applied previously per the 3RR complaint. The three IPs who had edited recently were obviously run by the same person, so it was a case of sockuppetry. We should be able to respond to conventional socking in a proportionate manner, under regular admin authority. Though ECP might be called on if necessary, I don't perceive that it's yet necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
EdJohnston, El_C Just passing by to note the existence of the Soviet partisans in Poland article... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Ugh! Sorry, Ed. Obviously, I can't read. I've restored your original semiprotection with profuse apologies and shame. Thanks, but it looks I already had it watchlisted, Piotr. El_C 03:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

"Ukrainian partisans" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ukrainian partisans and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Ukrainian partisans until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Ukrainian resistance during World War II" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ukrainian resistance during World War II and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Ukrainian resistance during World War II until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Categories: