Talk:Polish–Romanian alliance

Kudos

Kudos for the creator! //Halibutt 18:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is much smaller then I wanted: there is almost no info online, pages or print (I still have scholar to check). If anybody has access to some offline print material, please help expand this article, especially on the issues betweeen 1921 and 1939.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to expand on the preparatory stages and on early Polish-Rumanian cooperation, just google the words "Pokucie" and "1919" or "1920" :) Also, I'm sure I have something useful at home. It might take me some time to get there though. //Halibutt 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I found an interesting article (and its second part) from Magazin Istoric (in Romanian only, unfortunately), which studies Polish-Romanian relations in the inter-war period. The author had gone through diplomatic Romanian archives in order to write a book, so it is full of quotations from documents from that period. I am reading and trying to extract information from it, and adding it progressively to the article during these days. If any Romanian editor is willing to help, please step up. There are also other articles from the same magazine, "Romania refuses to occupy Ukraine" and "An alliance with Romania has to exist", talking mostly about the preliminaries of the treaty. ---Andrei 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Unfortunately I can only apploud from the sidelines now :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish I had noticed this appeal before. I'm willing to include refences to the articles (I was looking for one of them in my magazines, I'm glad it has an online version). Bear with me. Dahn 20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Google Books as citation

Citation should really be to a specific page in the book itself, which should be explicitly cited. A link to Google Books, which requires an account and login, is really not a clean citation on its own. It should only be a convenience link in an otherwise good citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

While I am not fond of embedded link citation style, it is acceptable as per WP:MOS. And Google books are much more easy to verify then your average library book, thus are much preferable to them; also unlike many academic databases, Google book account and viewing are free.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, Google Books does not require an account, AFAIK. It makes your life easier, but books are available without an account anyway. //Halibutt 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Some, but not all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Jmabel here. A link to Google Books is not a legitimate form of "embedded link citation style" - the source cited is the book, not a webpage; at minimum we need the standard biblographic data. An additional link to Google Books would certainly be welcome, though. If assistance is wanted in transforming the citations, I'd be happy to help. Please ask on my talk page, as I'm not watching this page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, full citation with cite.php is preferable, of course, but until somebody finds the time to do so, what's wrong with a link to Google Books?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone (i.e. me) has now found the time. Presuming my first one isn't reverted in the next few days, I'll do the rest of them. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So Jesse, what happened? Because the article is still (or maybe again?) full of Google books links. - Jmabel | Talk 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

References problem

Can other users verify if the problem with this revision really causes such problems for many users? It looks good on my screen and contains much more useful data.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No visual problem with either for me; I didn't take the time to really compare content. - Jmabel | Talk 22:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

World War II

Why did Poland decline Romanian military assistance after the outbreak of World War II? Appleseed (Talk) 20:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it wanted to win :P. Dahn 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Not sure if I follow you. From what I read the logic was that Romanian military would not help much, but it would be better to have 'neutral' Romania where the allies troops and supplies could move freely. I'd certainly like to see this fleshed out to more than one sentence we currently have. PS. Found an interesting article in Polish ([1]), among other things it mentions that the Alliance was against SU, not G, thus Romania was not oblidged to help. It also mentions Romania was unable and unwilling to help - on the other hand, Poland did not ask for help as it realized both of those factors. This article has more info that we can use, unfortunatly as a primary source it's rather poor (Usenet post).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Mine was just a joke: Romania was not exactly a war machine in 1939, to put it mildly... We had the fancy uniforms, though. Dahn 22:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Once when playing HoI I decided to play Romania and conquered most of the Balkans :) But yes, I think it would be one of the main reasons. On the other hand, Polish military had (obviously) some faults, too. It would be interesting to see some more information on Romanian military in 1939 at some point.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Split?

This article covers several treaties. What are your thoughts on splitting it into several articles, one for each treaty? We could then link them together with a "Polish-Romanian Alliance" template. Appleseed (Talk) 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article can still get much bigger without still being too big; splitting would result in a series of small articles with insufficent context (as opposed to a single and clear chronological listing). Dahn 21:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. At some point this will need to be split, but I don't see the need to create stubs now, the article is still not too long.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The recent "addition"

Aside from the text being horribly phrased and painfully non-wikifed, it had deleted referenced text altogether (interestingly, without also deleting references or notes already in there), it was repetitive, mildly POV (stuff like "sincere friendship"), and most likely an infringment of copyright (it is embarassing that the user who took the time to [poorly] translate it was not aware that it is not legal to make the translation public!). If some of the information, once condensed, tailored to the text altready present, and properly written, could have made its way back into the text (most of it does not), this cannot be attempted as such: it is absurd to translate the title of a reference that is in Romanian originally without providing its original title, and a magazine reference should at least provide the month of its publication. Anonymous user, please see WP:Copyrights and WP:Vandalism. Dahn 12:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Map

Poland (1920-1939); northern areas of Romania visible to the south, in dark brown color

Here's a version that labels the countries; feel free to use it.

This map could be very unclear to readers who are unfamiliar with the region, because there is no written attributes - which state is which, for example what blue color represents and similar? M.K. 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly our main mapmaker, User:Halibutt, can only do so much. I wish he would do more maps for us - you can ask him - alas, I am afraid we may wait a little bit for something to happen. Perhaps you could try your hand at that? I have no experience with map making online.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

online? Uh? Nevertheless, are there no another maps of this period in wiki? hmm. I will try to think something. M.K. 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am lost a bit, I just thought I could use this existing image as layer to modification, but it is copyrighted! So how can it be? And another note this image`s expanded description window, stated Early version of my map of Poland and Eastern Europe between 1918 and it is wrong or I something missed? M.K. 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, it is copyrighted under GFDL, so you can use it respecting attribution and share-alike rules of this licence. I am not sure I understand your comment about description - sure, Poland's borders changed, particularly in 1918-1921, but this shape is considered the 'standard'. Perhaps you should ask Halibutt as the author?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem of GFDL is but changing it is not allowed, my intention was to change it accordingly with state names, and this license prevents me do so. M.K. 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing from GFDL to other licence is not allowed, but you can do whatever you want with the picture. It's like CC BY-SA, IIRC.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A, I see. Going back to the date issue they are wrong it cant be a between 1918 and 1945, because the borders was not the same shape during these years as shown in image, for instance Vilnius, Klaipeda regions and similar, but probably it is another example of POV or I something missed or misunderstood. Secondly and the caption of this image in this particular article is misleading - because you can not portray the surrounding states which borders were different during 1920-1939 time frame, example Klaipeda was part of Lithuania during '23-'39 not part of Germany. So I suggest at least write 1920. About image with state names, I have received some images which I have to work so I would have no time to adjust this map. M.K. 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A related event

Check this - some negotiations between Grigore Gafencu and Józef Beck. Perhaps this can be used in the article - what do you think, Dahn? Others?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's interesting. It seems to offer some explanation into why we didn't get to help you guys after all - you... didn't want us to... Dahn 02:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it seems to fit some of the stuff we read/discussed before. It's nice when the pieces fit in :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It sure is. Dahn 04:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

Comments:

• Expand the introduction. It should be 3-4 paragraphs in length.
• Romania, having established contacts with Poland in January-February 1919 (after Stanisław Głąbiński's visit to Bucharest),[2] oriented itself towards a cordon sanitaire alliance against Bolshevist Russia and the newly-created Comintern; the proclamation of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, the German insurrection, and the Red Army's capture of Odessa[3] alarmed politicians in both countries. Wow, that is a long hard to read sentence... I've read it 4 times and I'm not sure as to what it says.
• "but accepted and supported Polish military transit through its territory." Why? What does this mean? elaborate some.
• "According to another of Pruszyński's reports," What are Pruszynski's reports? Where was the first for this to be a second?
• "The Romanian Army intervened in the Polish-Ukrainian War against the West Ukrainian People's Republic (created in Galicia in the summer of that year), helping the Poles in Pokuttya." This sentence is out of place in the paragraph and comes out of the blue.
• The first treaty was the Convention on Defensive Alliance signed on March 3, 1921 in Bucharest. It committed both parties to render each other armed assistance "in case one of the sides is attacked at its present Eastern frontiers"[12] and was aimed at containing Russia —from, 1922, the Soviet Union—, which had just lost the Polish-Soviet War. The treaty was concluded for the period of five years. Again, this is a long sentence that would be better off as several shorter sentences.
• Watch the long sentences.
• The section "European Context" really feels like a bunch of bullet points without having flow between the sentences.

The article needs a fair amount of attention, it is fairly choppy, but I'm not quite ready to fail it yet. I will probably ask for somebody else to make that determination.Balloonman 09:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of the above points makes sense, except perhaps the first one.

Perhaps it was because I wrote it at 3 am ;-) Let's see if I can clear it up some.

• as noted.
• read it as two sentences, and there should be no problem.

• Even if I read it as two sentences it gets confusing. The first "sentence" has three/four points:

1) having established contacts with Poland in January-February 1919

2) (after Stanisław Głąbiński's visit to Bucharest)

3) oriented itself towards a cordon sanitaire alliance against Bolshevist Russia

3a) and the newly-created Comintern;

The second "sentence" is clear, but it's the first half that I'd break into two or more sentences.

• clarified in the very next sentence.

• Pruszyński is already mentioned in the text as the author of reports. One cannot and should provide the same information every time his name is mentioned.

• Agreed, my mistake. I didn't see his name the first time. But reading it a second time, I probably wouldn't include his name. I'd prefer, "Romania was not been engaged in the Polish-Soviet War, but accepted and supported Polish military transit through its territory. Romania facilitated the transit of Polish nationals from Russia to their native areas, as well as furnishing armament and grain at preferential prices.[5]"

• it is the final development in a series, and is clarified as much as it should be (I could not gather much more detail on it). I don't see why it would be "out of the blue".

• When I say "out of the blue" it means that *I* didn't feel as if the transition was there. The first two sentences of the paragraph are talking about transportation and the Polish-Soviet War and suddenly we are talking about Romanian involvement in the Polish-Ukrainian War. As a person unfamiliar with these events, this sounds like a completely different unrelated affair and I am left wondering how they connect. Perhaps adding a sentence at the beginning of the paragraph tying the entire paragraph together, something along the lines of, "Romania had not been engaged in the Polish-Soviet War, but aided Poland in other ways." Then go to list the other ways that Romania assisted its ally.

• except that it is three sentences, none of which is long.

• The first one I definately would work on, the second one I missed the periods I think it is the akward grammar that threw me... EG the "frontiers"[12] and was aimed at containing Russia —from, 1922, the Soviet Union—, which." The dashes, commas, and end-note made it hard to read. Also, references should go at the end of the sentence not in the middle.

• this is not a separate point. And, may I add, the article is on en:wiki, not on Simple English wiki.

• I'm going to assume that in good faith, and not as a personal attack. English needs to be written so that the average person can read it. I found the article choppy and difficult to read. You may disagree, but as is I found this page difficult to read. I offered suggestions on how to improve it, it is up to you to listen to those suggestions/ideas.

• I dislike bullet points in texts profoundly, and I do not think that they are a requirement (I don't see them in the Britannica or any notable dictionary), especially for a section that is not, in fact, ambiguous (it has simply been misread as ambiguous).

• I'm not saying to make it bullet points, but when I read it I felt as if I were reading bullet points. To me, and this is just one person's opinion, felt like a list of facts placed back to back to back with little transition between the sentences. Again, I didn't read it as ambiguous, I read it as a choppy section where the English needed to be improved.

May I add: such issues raised are part of a problematic tendency on wikipedia - to over-explain, to break things down into little bits, to gently flow towards the purely generic and didactic aspect. Wikipedia may not be paper, but that's not because it is preparing to become maculature. Dahn 13:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be problematic, but it needs to be readable to the person unfamiliar with the subject. I found it difficult to read and pointed out areas that I felt should be improved. If a person reviewing the article takes time to make comments, perhaps the best response isn't to attack said person, but rather to figure out how to incorporate those comments meaningfully---you do not have to accept any or all of my comments, but if I have them, perhaps others will as well. I should also note, that I thought the article was strong enough not to fail it outright... with a little effort, IMHO, this could be a good article.Balloonman 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know why you simply didn't edit in the changes you wanted, if it was that pressing: they were all style-related, and I still consider most superfluous. I don't know if the current form is better, but I know it took me one minute to write it in (how much did it take to write the criticism above?). I couldn't help but think that you wanted to reedit much of the article as simpler and easier sentences, given some of your comments and the fact that you chose not to make the series of minor changes (and it still does not strike me as constructive to question an article's status based on minor style disagreements, although I don't actually care that much if this article makes in that list). Even the first-paragraph summary could be, in theory, written by any person who has read the article. I'm not saying that other editors should be completing such tasks, I'm saying that this approach to article criticism is unreasonably bureaucratic.

Btw, I did not mean the Simple English reference as an insult to anyone, nor did I imply that Balloonman cannot comprehend long sentences - as is clear from my comments above, I indicated my concern that editors are designing articles with the simplest reader in mind. I fully agree that a text needs to be explicit for unfamiliar users (which is why I added so much content to this article) - but I also think it is utterly absurd to explain in a related article what the content of a clickable link is ("if you, reader, do not want to click the link for the Polish-Ukrainian War and find out what it is, you may want to read here, just next to the blue link, the explanation of what the Polish-Ukrainian War was"). Dahn 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Failure--Balloonman's comments are dead on. The fact that the lead does not summarize the article is by itself enough reason to fail this GA. Dahn--his concerns are valid and you should work with him rather than argue. Rlevse 17:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)