Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:30, 29 March 2008

Military history: European / Polish / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force Polish military history task force World War II task force

I suggest splitting this article into Westerplatte (about the place) and Battle of Westerplatte. Sounds good? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. ] 01:13, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

So..? ] 02:09, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Unlike Modlin, I am not sure *how* it would be best split. I know it should be split somehow...but that's all. Feel free to do it if you have a better vision now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving info from 'Battle of Westerplatte' section to the new Battle of Westerplatte article (with appopriate refs/boxes etc.), leaving the rest here and expanding on what is currenty there (a musuem, perhaps)? Or, as basically all the contenct here is about the battle, we can simply rename this article to Battle of Westerplatte.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK on the first proposition. --HanzoHattori 06:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Link

The link to gis.gdansk.pl is broken and redirects to gdansk.pl 83.29.215.226 10:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish 1933 war proposal

Piotrus (talk · contribs), you seem confused both on the purpose of this article and on wiki policy.

Let me try to clarify some things for you. (1)The article is about Westerplatte. It is not some sort of shrine dedicated to the 1939 Battle of Westerplatte, it is simply an article about the Polish Military Transit Depot (WST), situated in the territory of the Free City of Danzig. As such it can contain a section on the 1939 battle, and any other intresting aspects related to it, whatever the year they refer to!

I write this referring to your revert where you refuse my request to take your perceived issues to the talk page: Qote your edit summary: (what's to take? 1933 events are completely irrelevant to the 1939 ones, unless you can cite a scholarly ref that draws a connection)

I hope we can agree that this article is not only about Westerplatte during the year 1939? Otherwise we must rename it. If you feel that the link to the Gleiwitz incident is too tenuous, then deleting that sentence would have sufficed nicely.

(2) I think the fact that Poland in 1933 offered France that they would manufacture a staged "incident" in Westerplatte in order to justify a war against Germany is quite Notable. If you disagree then take your arguments to the talk page. Simply reverting and refusing to discuss is very impolite. I attach the disputed text below:

Polish 1933 War Proposal

In 1933 Poland repeatedly tried to involve France in a "preventive war" against Germany. The Polish dictator offered to provide a faked "incident" in Westerplatte as casus belli to justify the invasion of Germany.

The offer was rejected, and instead the Germans would create the Gleiwitz incident 6 year later to justify their invasion of Poland.

I hope you can now agree on including the text, or present a reasonable argument against the inclusion!--Stor stark7 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire idea of the 1933 war proposal is still not universally accepted by the historians. But I guess while this borders on fringe trivia, this may stay in the article - the problem is we simply don't have the history section necessary for this trivia fact to look not completely out of context.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion =

Hi. Somebody requested a third opinion. It looks like you two have come to consensus here, so I'm not sure what opining you need.

I agree that the fact is interesting and relevant. It would be better if you could link to some other article that discussed the topic further, and I'd be inclined to replace the phrase "Polish dictator" with the name of the person involved. As to not having a history section, perhaps you could create one, although since the bulk of the article seems to be military history, having it as a top-level section seemed like a reasonable start.

Piotrus, I'll add that removing somebody's good-faith edit with "totally irrelevant" does not demonstrate the consideration due your fellow editors. Reverting a second time after being asked to discuss it on the talk page is inappropriate, borders on edit warring, and contributed to Stor stark7 being needlessly riled up. In the future, I'd recommend trying to show a little more grace. William Pietri (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class Polish military history articles
• Polish military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles