Talk:Operation Minsk

Being or not part of the war

1. These events being a part of the Polish-Soviet War is not universally accepted. Some sources consider the 1920 Polish invasion of Ukraine as the war's starting point.

Ok, if these events were not part of the Polish-Soviet War, then which war or conflict where they a part of? Surely this should be mentioned in the note, and backed up by references. Otherwise it only confuses the reader. Balcer 00:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Accroding to many sources, including EB and Columbia E, the PSW started in spring 1920 (I will add the CE ref too). The skirmishes that proceeded it where just that, isolated armed clashes between to nascent states during their painful quest for their place in the post-WW1 world. The whole PSW cycle grossly blows many events out of proportion. Every minor skrimish with a couple of dozen participants is called a battle. If I did not know too well how these all developed, I would have assumed that the reasons of why this condition emerged are different from the urge to create dozens of articles with "Polish victory" in the infoboxes. Such articles are, eg. "Battle" of Bereza Kartuska, or "Battle" of Volodarka of which even Davies apparantly does not know accroding to his WERS. --Irpen 00:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the fighting between Polish and Soviet forces was much more intense in 1920 than in 1919, and that should be clearly indicated in our articles about the conflict. Still, the battles of 1919 were quite serious, and definitely involved more than a few dozen participants. Anyway, I have no fundamental objections to having articles about even minor battles (Wikipedia is not paper after all. For a perfect illustration, see Battles of the American Civil War with Battle of Fort Anderson, Battle of Athens (1864), Battle of Baxter Springs and so on and so forth. Also see Battle of Kruty for something closer to home.).

As for sources, it should be kept in mind that monographs about the war written by recognized experts count for more than brief entries in encyclopedias. To illustrate with my favourite example, Encyclopedia Britannica calls Copernicus a Polish astronomer in the first sentence of its article about him, yet after a long discussion concensus was reached our Wikipedia article about Copernicus should not use this formulation in the lead.Balcer 00:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

WP, being not a paper, can have an article devoted to any minor skirmish, but giving it name a "Battle of..." is then misleading if such event does not qualify to be called a Battle in major sources. As for monographs, WERS is such a monograph and it does not know anything about Polish victory at Volodarka. Moreover, it does not know Volodarka either. Neither Meltyukhov mentions Volodrarka in his monograph.

Finally, a position presented by a monograph written by a recognized expert even if different from EB warrants a mention, I agree. However, it is important to distinguish facts from their interpretations. Britannica's position that Copernicus was a Polish astronomer (interpretation drawn by EB's author from what he knows about his heritage) warrants at least to be made known in the article so that even if the article does not call him passingly "a Polish astronomer" as if there is no issue to discuss, it should make a referenced statement that he is widely considered a Polish astronomer. Same here, contradiction between Davies on one side and EB and CE on the other side requires us to avoid an assertion that claims made by one of the two are plainly wrong. We should state that the date of the war's start is not universally agreed with some sources (ref Davies) saying A and other sources (ref EB, CE) saying B. Neither of such sources allows to discount the other's repsectability since the latter is fully established. At the same time neither of the sources can be taken as universal truth, if they disagree with other sources equally respectable. --Irpen 01:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Norman Davies' 'White Eagle, Red Star' is considered the best and most detailed work on the PSW. In it he discusses how previous research made the mistake of using the 1920 year as a start; I think we should follow Davies and mention that modern works on the PSW go with 1919. Certainly it is a good idea to discuss that common misconception in the PSW article, but I don't think we need a note in every battle or event related to 1919 part. Also, per WP:RS, modern academic research (Davies) trumps encyclopedias, especially as some of their articles have not been reviewed in decades and might not have been written by experts such as Davies. Simply, if Davies sais A and EB sais B, the choice is obvious.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As the examples I cited show, in English the term "battle" is quite broad, and thus even Battle of Wolodarka qualifies for its name, at least as far as the size of the forces involved is concerned (discussion about the references for it does not belong here but on its talk page).

As for Britannica and its authority, the whole point of Wikipedia, in my opinion at least, is to surpass it. If Britannica is better and more authoritative than Wikipedia, then why do we bother with this effort at all? So, I would say in general that the use of some statement in Britannica is not sufficient grounds for forcing that statement into Wikipedia. This is especially true if one has a subject to which Britannica (which is paper after all) devotes only a few paragraphs.

So, here is a very simple question. Can you present references to serious monographs written by scholars, which present the contradictory view on the duration of the Polish-Soviet War? If there really is a serious debate among scholars over the issue, finding solid references to suppport this thesis should be straightforward. Balcer 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Davies alone, however respected, does not trump the rest of the mainstream. Britannica is specifically mentioned at WP:RS as a reliable source. The way I see it is that both sources I respectable enough to have their opinion included and both sources are respectable enough to not be discounted just because one of them contradicts the other. If we had a single, while notable and respected, scholar holding out to a fringe POV, we should have only stated this once in a narrow article and forget about this everywhere else. If such scholar is also otherwise disreputable, we won't need him mentioned at all. Neither is the case here. --Irpen 02:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:RS 'White Eagle, Red Star' is a Secondary source. WP:RS specifically states: In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources.. Britannica (and other encyclopedias) is regarded by WP:RS as a Tertiary source (especially its short articles). It seems clear to me that a good secondary source is much more preferrable to any tertiary source (even a reliable one).

I repeat the question: can you find good secondary sources which argue for a different duration for the war than Davies. If Davies is going against the rest of the mainstream, that should be easy to demonstrate by citing reputable secondary works that contradict him. If you can't, there will be good grounds to remove your note under WP:RS. Balcer 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

First, WP:RS makes a specific excemtion for such tertiary source as EB "Publications such as the Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta are regarded as reliable sources.". Second, I added secondary sources as well. --Irpen 03:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless academic sources are preffered to encyclopedia, and Davies book is recongnized as the most modern and reliable study of the PSW. The other publication you cite are not specifically about the PSW; thus even if academic unless they specifically rebuke Davies claim they are less reliable on the matter of PSW than Davies. PS. Let me repharse my argument: Davies book is the most indepth English academic study of the war (please correct me if you know any others). He is recognized as the expert on the PSW due to this work. Thus his arguments are most reliable, and cannot be trumpted by tetriary sources or even English acedemic secondary sources that only mention PSW in passing, as their authors are not considered experts on PSW (unlike Davies, who is).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Be serious, Irpen. Erik Goldstein's Wars and Peace Treaties is essentially an encyclopedia of wars and peace treaties, and it barely devotes a page to PSW. It is only a tertiary source. So is a historical atlas of WWI (I doubt it devotes more than 1 page to PSW). And the book about Katyn? How is that relevant here? How many pages does it devote to PSW? Finding a secondary source devoted to a different subject that only mentions PSW in passing obviously misses the point.

So, let me ask again. Can you find solid secondary sources, which discuss PSW at length, and which claim different duration for it? Balcer 03:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific and building up on my argument above: are there any English academic journal articles or books with significant chapters (and of course, books themselves) on PSW and state that the date of the war is 1920? Preferably acknowledging and criticizng Davies research?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

All I am saying is that those, along with CE and EB are unquestionably mainstream sources, while EB and CE is not just the mainstream source but the synonyms of mainstreamness. Also note that Ruthlege Atlas is a specialized publication devoted to the military history of Europe.

Mainstream and truth is not one and the same thing, but neither encyclopedicity and truth is one and the same. Encyclopedia does not present "truth". It presents "knowledge". A multitude of respected sources consider the PSW so unquestionably an event of 1920 that they do not even bother to elaborate. They may be all wrong hypothetically and the authority of Davies is big. However, even Davies' assertion is not enough to present the fact that 1919 is part of the war passingly, as if this is a universal truth, in view of the opinion to the contrary being obviously common among the scholars.

Sadly, the amount of ignorance about the history of Eastern Europe in the English-speaking world is staggering in general, and especially disturbing when the years during and after World War I are concerned. Do you realize, for example, that there is only one serious monograph about the Eastern Front of World War I? It's a book by Norman Stone: The Eastern Front, 1914-1917, published in 1975. I just saw a new edition of it, because no one has bothered to study this subject as a whole since. Actualy, Stone's book plays a similar role for that conflict as WERS does for PSW.

Given that, there is a "multitude of respected sources" (in reality various tertiary and unrelated secondary sources) which write total nonsense about Russia's military effort in World War I. Should we propagate that nonsense in Wikipedia, on the basis of "supporting the mainstream"? I certainly don't plan to do it, and neither should you.

Really, do you feel proud of yourself that you have added "knowledge", because Wikipedia does not present the "truth"? I will stop here, before I cross into PA territory. Balcer 03:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the elink below. Most areas have more publications, but only few are well known. The fact that WERS is among the key ones should add even more weight to its claim.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, neither you nor me have any right to come to Wikipedia with a mission to "correct" the views of academics. The mission of any encyclopedia is to reflect the views of academics with an excemption of the fringe theories and crackpot stuff with the latter being by definition non-academic and the former being occasionally the case within academia as well. We are not here to fight the historical injustices, disprove the views we consider wrong and promote the views we consider right. Some come to Wikipedia solely to promote some missions, which may be promoting the world's appreciation of the Polish military glory, advancing the Ukrainian-based spelling of the name of its capital, correcting the world underestimation of the Soviet contribution to the Hitler's demise or any other of what we perceive "world injustices". Encyclopedia is the wrong venue for such activities. --Irpen 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

From [1]:

A) sources that note in title that the war lasted in 1919 (not counting WERS): 1) German General Staff, The Polish-Soviet Russian War 1918-1920, 1955 2) Grove, William R., War's Aftermath (Polish Relief in 1919), 1940 3) Karolevitz, Robert F., and Ross S. Fenn, Flight of Eagles: The Story of the American Kosciuszko Squadron in the Polish-Russian War 1919-1920, 1974 4) Pilsudski, Jozef, Year 1920 and its Climax: Battle of Warsaw During the Polish- Soviet War, 1919-1920., 1972 5) Bryant, F. Russell, "Anglo-Polish Relations During the Soviet-Polish War, 1919-1921, 1963 6) Biskupski, M. B., "Pilsudski, Poland, and the War With Russia, 1919-1920", 1987 7) Carley, Michael Jabara, "The Politics of Anti-Bolshevism: The French Government and the Russo-Polish War, December 1919 to May 1920, 1976 8) Davies, Norman, "The Genesis of the Polish-Soviet War, 1919-20," 1975 9) Davies, Norman, "The Missing Revolutionary War: The Polish Campaigns and the Retreat from Revolution in Soviet Russia, 1919-21," 10) Dziewanowski, M. K. "Polish-Soviet War of 1919-21," 1975 11) Elcock, H. J., "Britain and the Russo-Polish Frontier 1919-21," 1921 12) Fibich, Michael J., "On the Polish-Bolshevik Front in 1919 and 1920," 1923

B) sources that note in the title that the war lasted only in 1920: 1) Flynn, John James, "British Diplomacy and the Polish-Soviet War of 1920." 1983 2) Shewchuk, Serge Michiel, "The Russo-Polish War of 1920." 1966 3) Farman, Elbert E., Jr., "The Polish-Bolshevik Cavalry Campaign of 1920," 1921 4) Himmer, Robert, "Soviet Policy Toward Germany During the Russo-Polish War, 1920," 1976 5) Kukiel, Marian, "The Polish-Soviet Campaign of 1920," 1941 6) Macfarlane, L. J., "Hands Off Russia: British Labour and the Russo-Polish War, 1920 1967 7) McCann, James M., "Beyond the Bug: Soviet Historiography of the Soviet-Polish War of 1920, 1920 8) Posey, John P., "Soviet Propaganda as a Diplomatic Prelude to the Russo-Polish War, 1920," 1969 9) Posey, John P. "Soviet Propaganda, Europe and the Russo-Polish War 1920," 1968 10) Weygand, Maxime, "The Red Army in the Polish War, 1920," 1956

While study of titles is not comprehensive, I think it is a good indicator of 'mainsteam'. As we can see, 13 vs 10 indicate that Davies most certainly is not in the minority. Further, if we look at the modern sources (from 1972 when WERS was published) we have 7 vs 3, which would indicate that modern research prefers the date 1919.

And agreeing the above study is not fullproof, I challenge you to present a better one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, this just shows that there is no universally accepted answer. I did not claim that Davies is a minority. I am claiming that the issue is not settled among the scholars. As such, we can't pretend that it is. --Irpen 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Most modern publications have settled on 1919. So should we, it's as simple as that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

PSW only got the West's attention in 1920, once Poland seemed on the verge of being overrun and the Red Army was about to bring the Revolution to Germany. Only then did the war become a serious diplomatic matter. Thus in Western minds the war is, not surprisingly, associated with 1920, and the book titles reflect that. But we should know better.

This whole discussion is getting strange. We all know that there was fighting between Poland and Soviet Russia in 1919. Surely we can agree that it was part of the Polish-Soviet War? If not, what is the name of the conflict to which it should be assigned? Any suggestions, Irpen? Balcer 04:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The fight may or may not be a part of the war. It may be a skirmish of its own. Neither Sino-Soviet conflict (1929) nor even Sino-Soviet conflict (1969) was part of any war. So, this is possible. As for the "western atttention", again, you are trying to correct the world injustices and biases here (see above). "They all got it wrong because they did not realize the importance" but Balcer, Piotrus and Irpen should know better than the scholars who were all mislead by their biases is not an appropriate argument to decide on the content dispute. --Irpen 04:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply, for the West the fighting of 1919 was not that important. Only in 1920 did the PSW become an urgent concern for a few months. Hence Western histories and descriptions of the war (especially those published soon after) will quite naturally tend to focus on 1920.

I simply wonder: the historians who are aware of the 1919 Polish-Soviet fighting, but who do not consider it part of the Polish-Soviet war, what do they call it? Much more importantly, what is the argument they use to justify disregarding the fighting of 1919 as part of PSW? References would be nice, as always. Balcer 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

They do not "disregard" this fighting. They simply do not consider it being part of the war. Moreover, the parties themselves did not see that the major war between them was coming during what seemed as lesser scale armed conflicts. --Irpen 05:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Last but not least: Davies explicitly notes that the war started in 1919 and historians who don't see that are making a grave error. Are there any historians who claim otherwise? If not, that we should follow the undisputed authority on PSW, Davies, and stick with 1919 (noting that old research tended to make error in constraining the war to 1920).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

...thus not only disregarding sources like Britannica but even ignoring them. Very well, I think we all heard each other. I filed the article's RfC. Let's wait for the word from uninvolved users. --05:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RS: Sources divide; we should say so. For what it's worth, 1920-21 is the dating I'm familiar with; IIRC Kennan uses it. Septentrionalis 18:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to assume that there is no debate about any of these sources being unreliable... and that it is simply a question of which is more common and accepted. That is really an issue for WP:NPOV. My advice... don't try to be definitive as to the starting date. As Pmanderson states... if the sources devide, say so. Blueboar 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The question here is not determining the start of the Polish-Soviet War (that is discussed in its own article), but about which war this battle should be classified as part of. If some historians don't consider this battle to be a part of that war, how do they classify it? Surely we agree that Polish and Russian Soviet armies fought each other in 1919. What do they call these operations?

If we must have the note, I would prefer it to state something like : These events being a part of the Polish-Soviet War is not universally accepted. Some historians consider this battle to be a part of (insert classification here). Balcer 15:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is also instructive to look at what Britannica actually says:

Russo-Polish War (1919–20), military conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland, which sought to seize Ukraine. It resulted in the establishment of the Russo-Polish border that existed until 1939.

Although there had been hostilities between the two countries during 1919, the conflict began when the Polish head of state Józef Pilsudski formed an alliance with the Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petlyura (April 21, 1920) and their combined forces began to overrun Ukraine, occupying Kiev on May 7.

It is interesting to see how the article contradicts itself as to the duration of the war in its first 3 sentences. And this is the crowning reference for not classifying this battle as part of the Polish-Soviet War?

Anyway, as this entry clearly indicates, referring to the "Polish invasion of Ukraine" is POV (Britannica refers to combined Polish and Ukrainian forces, and does not use the word "invasion" anywhere). Hence it is better to link explicitly to Kiev Offensive which is a more neutral term (see also long discussions on Talk:Kiev Offensive).Balcer 16:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I beleive we have argeed not to use this term, as 'liberation' is as applicable (and POV). Btw, Davies in WERS has chapters about 'Polish invasion of Ukraine' - and than 'Russian ivasion of Poland', and devotes quite a lot of space to discussing how Poland never intended to create an empire, while Soviets did.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, Davies is known for his rather strong Polonophile views. This does not disqualify him at all but comments about intentions are always speculative. Petlura-Pilsudski treaty provisions are facts. That's for one. Second, about invasion and liberation. I am first to oppose the usage of such terms as well as used also by some here "massacres", "murders" and "martyrdoms" in the articles' titles. If Balcer and you finally changed your minds and now feel that "neutral" terms are preferable, please show this by actions such as suggesting to remove POV language from the titles of Katyn, ...in Volhynia and Lwow professors article. Someone here advocated PSC renamed to IoP as well and I see some double standards one more time. Also check a new example talk:Red Army invasion of Georgia). Now, this is a completely separate question from the appropriateness of the usage of the terms within the article's texts. If the war started in 1920, the starting event is the Polish invasion of Ukraine and there is no need to not say so. --Irpen 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess the references to Columbia Encyclopedia have to go as well, because that reference work actually considers the Polish-Soviet War to have occured in 1919-1920, as evidenced in its Belarus article.

A battlefield in World War I and in the Soviet-Polish War of 1919–20, Belarus experienced great devastation.

Oh well, it just goes to show that on some issues you can't trust even "respected" encyclopedias. Balcer 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, contrary to what you claim, Britannica's account is in no way self-contradictory. Yes, it aknowledges that there were Polish-Soviet conflicts in 1919. It simply does not consider them to be part of the war, which according to EB started in 1920. I showed to you above that not every skirmish needs to be a part of some war.

Second, referring to "Polish invasion of UA" is entirely appropriate, because this is exactly what it was. Someone argued, the KO article cannot be renamed to the Polish Invasion of UA because it also covers the Red Army counteroffensive. However, according to the adherents of the 1920 war version, the war started from the Rydz' "operation". There is no better word to describe Rydz' operation than "invasion", defined as "a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government."

Second, referring to "Polish invasion of UA" is entirely appropriate, because this is exactly what it was. Someone argued, the KO article cannot be renamed to the Polish Invasion of UA because it also covers the Red Army counteroffensive. However, according to the adherents of the 1920 war version, the war started from the Rydz' "operation". There is no better word to describe Rydz' operation than "invasion", defined as "a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government." BTW, there are plenty of refs that use invasion in this context.

The second ref (to CE) is entirely appropriate as well. CE is not written by a single author. The author of Tukhachevsky article considers only 1920 to be the war year. The author of Belarus article sees its differently. This reflects the lack of agreement on the issue among the scholars we already shown to exist.

Finally, contrary to what you wrote at the article's RfC, I do not insist on the detailed explanation of this in every article about the 1919 Polish-Soviet battles. However, I want a note at least, that the notion of those skrimishes being part of the war is not universally accepted because this is a true fact. Since Piotrus starts all of these articles with the PSW campaignbox, there is no other way to prevent the reader from being misinformed by the campaignbox' presence but adding an explanatory note that notion of this "battle" being a part of the war is not universal. --Irpen 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't this be under battle of Minsk (1919)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution

In a closely related article, Battle of Bereza Kartuska (1919), I have rewritten the footnote so it simply alerts the reader to the controversy around the naming and dating of this war and redirects her to the relevant section of the main Polish-Soviet War article. In this way we avoid the problem of re-debating the war's dates in many different articles, and simply send the reader to the place where it is discussed at length.

If no one objects, I will implement the same solution here, but I will wait for opinions of the participants in this discussion first. Balcer 20:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not have objected if the warbox that implies the answer to the issue was not on top of such articles. --Irpen 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you really see no problem with the fact that Encylopedia Britannica contradicts itself and gives two different dates for the start of the war in its first three sentences on that subject? Balcer 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia editors to be in position to editorialize on their own within the articles on reliable sources and criticize sources within articles. What you can do is to bring in the criticism by other sholars, which you did. That's all. --Irpen 02:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It is you who have editorialized by cherry-picking one sentence out of the Britannica article which supports your point of view and ignoring another sentence right next to it which blatantly contradicts it. If you want to be honest in citing sources, cite them in full.

Anyway, I think it is a simple matter to conclude that if a source gives two contradictory dates of an event one sentence apart, it is not to be trusted on the matter, even if it is Encyclopedia Britannica. Balcer 03:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)