Talk:Battle of the Dnieper/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

General copyedit/refactor

Referring to this edit - sorry, forgot the edit summary. I've done a general proofread/copyedit/refactor for wikilinks, grammar, removing colorful language and trying for a more neutral and formal/encyclopedic tone. Mentioned Manstein in the aftermath. I haven't substantially changed the content but the whole article reads much better now. Removed some text that appears to be conjecture or possibly original research (mentioned some of this earlier), here are my rationale for the excisions:

By mid-August, Hitler understood that the Soviet offensive could not be contained - at least, not until some internal disagreement broke out within the Allies.

Do we really know what Hitler understood at this time...?

While this hypothesis could be true to some extent, one must not forget that the action of establishing a bridgehead alone is dangerous enough and can (and usually does) lead to heavy losses.

This from the Criticisms section didn't follow logically from the "hypothesis"... which in the context of the battle as described is rather self-evident.

The right shore was still in German possession for most part, but both sides knew that it would not last for long.

Are we referring to Certain commanders' memoirs, or making blanket statements?

German losses, however, are more difficult to evaluate. The simple rule of 3:1 losses during an offensive operation against a heavily defended enemy would lead to a 500,000 casualties toll, reaching the one of Kursk. [...] Indeed, if one considers the casualties per day ratio of Kursk battle, an operation twice as long under similar conditions would lead to a 1,000,000 toll.

At the very least name the historian using this methodolgy.

One more thing... we should provide compass directions instead of/in addition to "left shore" and "right shore". heqs 05:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You deleted way to much (Deng 06:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

In the edit summary of your revert you said "restored all deleted info". Apart from a couple of minor details, I have provided rationale above for all the information that I removed. You also removed all the information that I added, and my correcting of broken english. Would you mind discussing the changes you have issues with before reverting? Thanks. heqs 08:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you deleted way too much. <_< I usually don't engage myself in a revert war, but you don't leave me much choice... :( -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 10:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, it was not my intention to start some kind of pointless revert war. Please discuss what issues you have with my edit? And don't say "You deleted way too much" because I clearly haven't done that. I mostly re-worded for NPOV, corrected poor english, and added a bit of relevant info. Perhaps you should take a closer look at the diff. heqs 11:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry heqs, but if you look at the talk page, you arrive in the middle of a very heavy revert war already. Consequently, everyone is kinda "overheated" and all, hence exaggerated reactions...

I do not doubt you assume good faith, and I'll review your modifications thoroughly when I'll have more time, but there are some dubious things already: it is not just an "airborne operation", it's "Dnieper airborne operation", and so on. And I think paragraphs you point out as OR and POV should be kept. Maybe expanded and referenced, okay, but kept. And in any case, you should have submitted your changed on this talk page before committing them. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 11:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The article hadn't been edited in 2 days, didn't think I was jumping in the middle of a revert war. If I got the name of an operation wrong or that type of thing, please feel free to name it back. I may have been bold in trying to improve the article but you should also review an edit thoroughly before hitting revert. heqs 12:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(decreasing indent)
I posted a review request on Military History project page. This page will therefore be reviewed by the Wikipedia WWII Task force (see here). Until then, you're welcome to comment on page's content... :) Thank you. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 17:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why people can't continue to modify the article as needed; certainly any forthcoming review shouldn't interfere with normal editing. Please do try to keep the sterile reverts to a minimum, though. ;-) Kirill Lok s h in 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 19:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

heqs >> I reread your version and I think that I will be able to come up with something both adequately sourced and integrating your excellent copyedits. It's just a matter of some time :) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 15:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection of the page

In front of some hopelessly narrow-minded people claiming that Ukrainian people are the greatest in the universe and that they would probably have already colonized Jupiter satellites without Russian occupation, that life in Ukraine under Nazi regime was true paradise, that their point of view prevails in front of Britannica and many other sources, that everyone is a pro-Soviet POV-pusher and so on, I requested and obtained the protection of this page.

Until a consensus is reached, and/or the mediation is requested and/or processed, this page gets locked.

I do not know about you guys, but I just can't stand spending half of my time monitoring this page instead of gathering evidence for new articles and writing them.

I am patient, but only up to a certain point <_< -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 15:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is all about the monitoring ;) (Deng 15:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC))

Up to a certain point only :) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 15:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what as much as you are tauting the Ukrainian svidomy POVs, you are correct about them. If you read some of their fairytales you will get the same impression. Well said.--Kuban Cossack

19:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

I go off to my Jupiter moon-colony (Nasha Europa) for a couple of days, and not only has this discussion not made any headway towards a consensus (which would free all of us to work on our respective WP projects), but all of the proposed "resolutions" seem to focus on trading insults and unnecessary revert wars.

Can we not simply debate the merits of using the term "liberate" and and come to a sensible conclusion? I have read a few basic arguments (hidden among the insults and put-downs) for the use of the term "liberate":

1- "Liberate" has been used historically, and continues to be used presently, to describe both this specific incident and other battles where Soviet forces drove back German invaders in WWII. As WP editors, we are bound to use such conventions.

2- We apply the term "liberation" to western victories over the German/Axis powers, and not doing so with Soviet victories represents a POV bias.

3- The Soviet troops which drove back the German/Axis forces were not foreign invaders but rather people native to the area who fought valiantly to regain control of there homeland while suffering tremendous losses. To remove the tag of "liberation" would not accurately reflect what these people fought and died for.

The request to find a reasonable term which could substitute "liberate" has been met with shocking hostility. (I understand about the past history amongst some members, but if anything, WP has always required equal parts knowledge and diplomacy, so how about we knock off the put-downs and start respecting each other's positions?) Taking off ideas expressed above, here are some contrary opinions about using the term "liberate:

A- Even though "liberation" has been used historically to describe these battles, WP's NPOV policy trumps the need to adhere to mainstream or majority opinions on the matter.

B- WP describes "liberation" as often understood as "to be freed (or change) from not having freedom to having freedom". Other definitions cited include to set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control. Under the direction of Stalin (who ruled before and after WWII), the quashing of dissent through executions, deportations to labor camps, and mass forced colonization projects hardly qualified the USSR as a free society.

C- The people of present-day Ukraine had already declared independence for the first time in modern history 25 years prior to this battle. The failure of these early Ukrainian states can be attributed in part to foreign agents (both political leaders and paramilitary units) whose goals were eventually realized when the USSR gained control of the territory. Since self-rule would not return to this territory until 1991, any claim of "liberation" is suspect. Other nations in the west who were "liberated" from Nazi occupation achieved self-rule after their "liberation".

Apart from put-downs, are there any other specific justifications to retain the use of the word "liberated"? Does anyone feel that WP:NOV does not trump other WP considerations?

Some alternatives to "liberation" include:

took
retook
reclaimed
regained
reappropriated
reassumed
reattained
recovered
repossessed
won

--tufkaa 06:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On A - Not following mainstream historical sources is original research and should be avoided.

What exactly is your objection to the renaming of this article to the one used in sources, then? It should be done right away. heqs 03:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On C, well, it depends on how you define a "nation". A Brittany nationalist could say that his nation was occupied by France in 1532 and therefore, 1944 only brought back French occupation instead of German. But curiously enough, they don't. Weird isn't it??? :) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 10:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I say the same thing as I said before, during the nazi period of 3 years 5-8 million people died. Therefore it is clear liberation when someone comes in and stops killing people left and right. After the soviet liberated the area the population grew it did not fall 5-8 million every 3 years but it grew (Deng 10:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

C:The people of present-day Ukraine had already declared independence for the first time in modern history 25 years prior to this battle. Was there a refferendum held 25 years prior to the battle which confirmed that everybody wanted independence. No. In that case your claim is pure original research, and an anecdotical opinion. There is no proof or disproof that in the Russian Civil War the majority of Ukrainian population did not support the Ukrainian SSR, which in the end triumphed. There is plenty of proof that the absoloute majority of Ukraininans, particulary native of the area that the battle took place in, fought for the Red Army or the Soviet partisans. There is proof for that. There is also proof that after the war they returned to that territory, rebuilt their lives and lived them well only to have 60 years later someone question that they did not fight for their future and were a minority of the wartime Ukrainians. That bullshit will not be allowed into wikipedia, no matter how some POV-pushers will like it to happen. Also the modern Ukraine is a direct successor to the Ukrainian SSR which was a founding republic of the USSR. So in retrospect the UkSSR is the full representetive of Ukrainians during the war, recognised by the internatinal community (and also was the founding member of the United Nations mind you). In 1991 it, according to its agreement willfully left the USSR, following a refferendum that was held. However what is there to assume that the POV of Ukrainians in 1991 was not different than in 1944 or in 1919? Nothing, there is no proof of that and hence original research for those that state that had that refferendum been conducted in 1944 or 1919 it would get the same results. So lets not infest this talk page for the n-th time that Ukrainians who founded the USSR were occupied by it. That is a direct contradiction. --Kuban Cossack

11:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr, your counter to point A seems in essence to mirror point 1, i.e. as WP editors, we are bound to use the term "liberate" because of the historical tradition of using it. I believe that point 1 vs. point A should be clarified outside the context of this particular article, but I thought AndriyK did a reasonable job above under the heading Please read WP:NPOV to argue that WP:NPOV takes precedence over following mainstream historical sources. If possible, please feel free to elaborate further your understanding of why point 1 trumps point A (your dismissal of point A was quite brief). Thank you for the courteous response though!

Kuban Kazak and SuperDeng seem to disagree with point B, which contends that the WP definition of liberate conflicts with conditions within the USSR under the rule of Stalin. I will not challenge Deng's assertion that the population of the UkSSR grew after the war, and I will also add the the economy prospered. However this does not counter the executions and deportations to labor camps which were used to suppress the populace. As WP itself states that is what occured during Stalin's reign, point B does not question the existence of the UkSSR, but rather the conditions that existed therein. Political dissent was literally slaughtered in the USSR, and this cannot be described as "liberty". Furthermore, I don't dismiss acomplishments made by the people of the Ukrainian SSR, but according to WP the Ukrainian SSR had no independent voice in international affairs. How does that square with assertions of sovereignty?

As to point C (which I believe is only brought up by me), I believe that Ukraine's attempt at self-rule at the beginning of the 20th century fundamentally alters the argument of "liberty". Can you clarify the example of Brittany once more? I don't seem to understand the analogy quite fully.--tufkaa 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That my freind is a POV in retrospect to political liberty in UkSSR. However political dissent was equally persecuted in other areas of the USSR. However nobody questions that the Soviet Union liberated the Russian or Belarusian territories. Finally comparing a genocidal regime which burned thousands of Ukrainian villages to the regime which allowed those villages to be rebuilt, re-settled and for the offspring to live their lives. I think the spectrum is quite different. Finally we are not disscussing the Soviet Purges which took place mostly AFTER the war. We are discussing that the Soviet Union was an equal participant in the anti-hitler coalition and deserves no double standards in its role (might I say the most important role) of freeing Europe from Tyranny. --Kuban Cossack

16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian SSR was created at the beggining of the 20th century by ... Ukrainians. Four years later it founded the USSR. Like in the anthem:

:Живи, Україно, прекрасна і сильна,
:В Радянськім Союзі ти щастя знайшла.
:Між рівними рівна, між вільними вільна,
:Під сонцем свободи, як цвіт розцвіла.

--Kuban Cossack 16:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

National anthems are generally not credible sources for political history. They are often filled with one-sided propaganda. heqs 03:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(Forgive me for moving your comment lower, but unless we begin signing each of our sentences, this constant interjecting will leave readers confused.)

According to the article on the Great Purge, Stalin's campaigns of political repression and persecution in the Soviet Union occurred during the late 1930s, and according to the History of the Soviet Union, he began to consolidate power and reject prior Soviet initiatives in the late 1920s. Also interesting to note is this discussion: Talk:History of the Soviet Union#The history of USSR - question for the West.--tufkaa 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this purge affected every single SSR, not just Ukraine! So why would we provide a double standard??? -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 17:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Can you clarify the example of Brittany once more? I don't seem to understand the analogy quite fully."

Once upon a time, that was a country named Brittany, ruled by its own ruler. Then in 16th century, it was annexed by the French crown, or as Brittany nationalist could say, "occupied". France staged a very aggressive "francisation" of Brittany, trying to make their native tongue and their traditions disappear. Breton was forbidden in schools, Breton nationalists were sent to prison and so on. And here are still some terrorist acts performed in the name of independent Brittany.

Then, in 1940, France (and Brittany) got invaded by the Third Reich. Naval bases were installed in Brest and Nantes, German planes were flying from there, the Atlantikwall was built, and so on. In short, it was occupied.

Then in 1944, after heavy fight, it fell back in French hands. Did Bretons got their self-ruling? No. Did they got their own elected governement? No, they got De Gaulle. According to your own criteria, they were not "liberated".

But still, will someone consest the words "Liberation of Brest"? No. Why? Because these are words used by anyone in this world, by all people freed from Nazism.

Why would Ukrainians (and not someone else) get a different standard? -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 17:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What double standard applies to the Great Purge? WP describes "liberation" as "to be freed (or change) from not having freedom to having freedom". Executions, suppression of political dissent, religious persecution and deportation to labor camps are not representative of a society "having freedom". I don't know anyone who would consider people in or outside of Ukraine subject to these policies as "having freedom". This is the crux of point B: using "liberation" in this context seems to be a POV contrary to the meaning of the word. If I were to compare post-war France with the Stalinist USSR, would the comparison with Brittany stand? --tufkaa 22:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it would. Because there wasn't just Ukraine. Why do you contest the word "liberation" for Kiev and for Ukraine, but do not contest it for Stalingrad, Orel, Rostov, Minsk or whatever else city in Russia, Bielorussia or Moldavia occupied by the Nazis? Why are Ukrainians so special that they deserve a different treatment than Russians do, even if they lived in the same Stalinist USSR? -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am addressing the situation Ukraine because that is the territory covered in the article. I do not think that there is anything "special" about requesting that "liberate" not be used to describe conditions which included executions, suppression of political dissent, religious persecution and deportation to labor camps. Are you implying that these conditions are indicative of an area that has been freed or changed from not having freedom to having freedom? If so, how? And if not, is that an argument to augment the definition of "liberate"?--tufkaa 22:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, did Brittany make a similar push for independence as Ukraine did at the beginning of the 20th century? This is the basis of point C: before the German invasion, Ukraine began the drive for self-rule. Even at this nascent stage, the historical arguments gathered and the outreach to the international community would eventually materialize in modern-day Ukraine, a free and independent state.--tufkaa 22:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Why just in the beginning of 20th century? Is the beginning of 20th century somehow special?? -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out a difference between the 2 areas: one declared independence at a certain time, the other didn't. I believe that there are more dissimilarities than similarities when comparing the two. Are there any points Britrany's history that relate closer to the situation described in the article?

I still don't understand how post-war France compares with the Stalinist USSR.--tufkaa 22:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

More than you could think. Fixed prices, planned economy, army interfering with internal politics and the list could go on... Oh, and read up on Guyanne labor camps too... -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Both countries got liberated from nazi tyranny. --Kuban Cossack

10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If a prisoner is moved from jail A to jail B, would it be correct to say that the prisoner was liberated from jail A? I don't think so. Why should we term the replacement of the Nazi dictatorship by the communist one as "liberation"? With the same success one could call the Nazi occupation as "liberation from Communist/Stalin tyranny" (what Nazi propaganda did, BTW).

The crucial difference between France and Ukraine that only the former one was liberated.--AndriyK 13:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, prisoners don't fight to be kept in jail. Soviet people, including a lot of Ukrainians, fought against Germany and for USSR, which Ukraine happened to found by the way.

By claiming otherwise, you're insulting the memory of your own ancestors.

(unless, of course, your ancestors fought in УНА-УНСО). -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 13:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

UNA-UNSO was created a decade ago or so and is irrelevant to our discussion as well to my ancestors.

prisoners don't fight to be kept in jail

Soviet soldiers fougt against Nazis not to be kept under Stalin tyranny. (So your analogy with prisoners fighting to be kept in jail does not work).

I do not think that telling truth about the war and post war period insults somebody's memory. Just in opposite. Many Ukrainians who fought Nazis in Red Army died of starvation in 1946-47. Calling this "liberation" would insul their memory indeed.--AndriyK 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet soldiers fougt against Nazis not to be kept under Stalin tyranny.

And what did they fought for? If they would not want to fight, you would probably end up with mass desertion like in 1914, not with fierce defense you actually ended up with.

As for starvation, well, when a war is over and country's infrastructure and economy is in shambles, it is a quite frequent phenomenon. Besides, it affected the whole country, not just Ukraine.

As I can see, once again, you seek to apply double standards, one for Ukraine and another for everybody else. This is called POV-pushing and it won't pass. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 14:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There were many French who "fought to stay in jail" - like the 33rd Waffen SS Charlemagne (also fought against Red Army in Ukraine in '44). Vichy France was recognized by Western governments - does that automatically make it a legitimage government? When was the Ukrainian SSR first recognized? Can't say I disagree with AndriyK here. Nazi propaganda up and down the eastern front portrayed Hitler as the ultimate liberator as his armies advanced. Much of what came the other way was also propaganda. Some of it is being used as source here, in the form of Soviet anthems and such. We need to find some middle ground. heqs 13:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

People seem to be forgeting the major thing which is that the Nazis systematically carried out genocidal policies against Jews, and deported others (mainly Ukrainians) to work in Germany. Under these circumstances, most people living on the occupied territory passively or actively opposed the Nazis. Total civilian losses during the war and German occupation in Ukraine are estimated between five and eight million, including over half a million Jews shot and killed by the Einsatzgruppen, sometimes with the help of Ukrainian collaborators. Of the estimated eleven million Soviet troops who fell in battle against the Nazis, about a quarter (2.7 million) were ethnic Ukrainians. Ukraine is distinguished as one of the first nations to fight the Axis powers in Carpatho-Ukraine, and one that saw some of the greatest bloodshed during the war. Taken from the Ukraine article in wiki (Deng 14:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC))

Stalin conducted purges of Jews and mass forced deportations of Jews (and Ukrainians) after the war. Soviets didn't even acknowledge that the Holocaust targeted Jews until a few years later... only "Soviet citizens". heqs 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not the subject of our discussion whether Ukrainians fougt Nazis. No doubt, they did. The point is that after all this (after 2.7 million Ukrainians fell in battles, millions were injured and shell-shocked) Ukraine did not became free, i.e. it was not liberated.--AndriyK 14:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course they were, heqs. There are always some scumbags that will attempt to turn their coat and fight along their new masters. As for the rest, SuperDeng already said everything just above. Nazis did not construct the Dnieper hydro plant, but destroyed it, Nazis did not built mines but destroyed them and so on... -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Industrial progress does not equal liberation...heqs 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Learn history, Grafikm_fr. Most of the industry was destroyed by retreating Soviet troops. (The so-called tactics of scorched earth). Nazi were evil, but they were not complete idiots. Only an idiot would destroy industry on the territory that is under his own control. Read about history of Ukraine in Britannica, for the beginning.--AndriyK 14:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of it was, of course, but the Dnieper dam, for instance was at first partially destroyed by Soviet troops (just enough to prevent it from being restored), and then thoroughly exploded by retreating German troops.

Anyway, if you're so clever and if you can spent 5 minutes doing something else than trolling, fill out that mediation case and we'll all get a good deal of laugh. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 14:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The mediation makes sence if you recognize that there is a POV problem (you did not do it so far as you removed the POV-tag) and if you agree to solve this problem using the assistence of the mediator. Please add your name here. --AndriyK 14:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think there is a POV problem and I think there is no need to start a mediation case. OTOH, you seem to think so, so go for it hehe... -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I see, you prefer to push your POV rather than work cooperatively and build the consensus.--AndriyK 15:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anyone's POV. This article uses terms both from Western and Russian sources, and they all have the same meaning. Using any other term would be original research and as such violating WP:NOR. And if I may, you don't even have to know what my opinion is. What I wrote in this article is common historical knowledge. Until you provide us with significant references proving that the word "liberate" is inappropriate in the context, it will remain. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said above: What exactly, then, is your objection to the renaming of this article to the one used in sources? It should be done right away. heqs 15:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

To moving the page to battle of Dnieper or something: none at all, except that I would like to settle on the final name beforehand.

Okay...we should probably wait until this liberate dispute is less heated anyway. heqs 15:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

To replace "liberated" with something else: a lifetime. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 15:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is not just for NPOV disputes... whatever you want to call it, there is a dispute here, afaik it qualifies. Wikipedia:Mediation heqs 15:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Then file one if you think so. You already know, more or less, what everyone will reply... -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 17:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation thoughts

While I don't object to mediation per se I think in this case it would be a waste of time because two many parties are involved in the argument and more will get involved. Any party that did not particiapte in mediation (of the current and/or future editors) are not bound by it in any way and the agreed version may be easily destroyed by a newcoming editor who has no reason to accept the mediation where he wasn't involved. Mediation may be useful when a number of parties are small 2-3, 4 max. Here, the right way would have been the article's RfC. However, the article's RfC is aimed at generation wider attention and here the attention is already wide and sampling is representative. The only way I see here is either a compromise or a straw-poll since the total consensus is unreachable, especially since the most fervent editor here, user:AndriyK is known to persist with his views no matter how many people oppose it and do all he can to force his views into the article no matter how strong the opposition is, either by frivolous irreversible moves moving see this or by tag trolling, that is throwing tags left and right, mostly with the refusal to discuss, followed by rabid revert-warring just 1 step under 3RR. These are all "quick-fix" tactics aimed at pushing as much POV as possible with as little effort as possible. The user haven't yet written anything for this and most other artciles he damaged. I will make a formal case on this behavior separately. In the meanwhile let's talk and try to find a compromise, if we can't all agree. --Irpen 18:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if we ignore AndriyKs trolling on the talk pages then really the main argument that people are trying to voice is wether we should have a double standard on the role that the USSR played in humanity's conquest to free the world from fascist tyranny. Although I do know that some neo-nazis would become very upset, but the majority educated and respectible historians and politicians in the west and in ex-USSR, all uniltaterally see that the USSR, the nation which contributed the decisive outcomes of the war might I add, has a fully equal and god-given right to be amogst that group. The fact that the Soviet society was not ideal is something that belongs in the USSR article, not here. As for that fact the postwar Europe also falls short of that title. Think about MacCartnitism or Franco's regime to name a few. However the DDay article does not say about the fact that after the war in America there was apreheid against the Black population in the South? No it does not. So again the question about having double standards for USSR and for the west is rediculous and downright insulting for many people. BTW Anryusha, if the USSR was oppressive, how could there be so many veternans that would never say a word against the coutnry that they fought. I know USSR was not perfect, but it was their homeland, homeland of Russians, Ukrainans, Belarusians...etc. Those nationalities did not fight for their freedom, they fought for their right to existance. In that context they freed their land so they could live on it. --Kuban Cossack

19:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, USSR was not "imperfect" but pretty bad in many ways. However, this doesn't exclude the usage of the term as most respected historians use it. And please, no BS that "they are not neutral". The reputation of being not neutral is a kiss of death to the standing of a historian among his peers. Same applies to Britannica and Columbia. They do have NPOV policy as well as adherence to the mainstream. This is a definition of an encyclopedia. So, don't invent the bycicle with new terminology here. --Irpen 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I locked this page in the first place. Mediation, RfC or whatever, if ALL available and serious history books use the term "liberate", there is absolutely no reason to not use it here. Unfortunately, as Irpen said, their will always be some POV-pushers for whom it is not enough. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read the history of Ukraine in Britannica. Surprisingly, they do not use 'liberate' in that article. Something like "Soviet troops 'reentered Kiev'", or "Ukraine wasagain under Soviet control" or similar. I would not insist the all serious books use "liberate". Why not to look for a compromise?--Mbuk 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Read Kiev article in Britannica and see for yourself. --Irpen 20:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will.But what I ment that not all books/articles use "liberate", but some, of cause, can do--Mbuk 21:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I take it that you meant that some (read: a minority) books do not use liberate, but the rest do. --Kuban Cossack

22:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't count all the books, ;) but I read soroughly WP:Consensus and WP:NPOV. Both have very little to do to majority and minority.--Mbuk 06:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mbuk, sources please :)) . -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 20:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Britannica, Macropedia, the article about Ukraine (I do not remember the volume and page).--Mbuk 21:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And Mbuk (an others), I am not arguing for using of the term liberate uniformly thoughout the article. Besides, that would be a bad style. However, I oppose someone's coming and purging the word from an entire article, as well as from entire set of GPW-related articles even more. I suggested the compromise as per the usage: the term can be used among others (but pls no occupation to 43-45 events, leave this for '39). My opponent here just pruges the word, replaces it with some other, tags the article and leaves. So tiresome but there will be an end to that. --Irpen 20:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(BTW, can someone archive the beginning of this page? It's rather lengthy and I've never done it before...)--tufkaa 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 11:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!--tufkaa 15:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the "discussion" (if we can call it that at times) breaks down when it veers into personal beliefs. I believe we can avoid such volatile discussions by separating the various disagreements and the arguments contained therein. I posit that the entire dispute would be resolved on the outcome of this first disagreement:

Whereas, "liberate" has been used historically, and continues to be used presently, to describe both this specific incident and other battles where Soviet forces drove back German invaders in WWII, as WP editors we are bound to use such conventions. Others such as myself contend that whereas "liberation" has been used historically to describe these battles, WP's NPOV policy trumps the need to adhere to mainstream or majority opinions on the matter. (See points 1 and A above.)

Resolving this disagreement would end the entire debate, because even if "liberate" proved to be a POV term, it would be overuled by the historical precedent argument.

Apart from this first disagreement, there is the related disagreement regarding the nature of "liberate" itself:

Whereas, WP describes "liberation" as often understood as "to be freed (or change) from not having freedom to having freedom", and still other definitions cited included "to set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control", under the direction of Stalin (who ruled before and after WWII), the quashing of dissent through executions, religious persecution, forced mass relocations, and deportation to labor camps hardly qualified the USSR as a free society. Others contend that whereas we apply the term "liberation" to western victories over the German/Axis powers, to not do so with Soviet victories represents a POV bias.

This becomes a question of whether "liberate" is inherently biased when used in this context.

The third disagreement can be had over not just whether the people of the Ukrainian SSR enjoyed freedom, but whether it was an occupied territory:

Whereas, the Soviet troops who drove back the German/Axis forces were not foreign invaders but rather people native to the area who fought valiantly to regain control of there homeland, and suffered tremendous losses in the process, to remove the tag of "liberation" would not accurately reflect what these people fought and died for. At the same time, the argument is presented that the citizens inhabiting the area of present-day Ukraine had already declared sovereignty for the first time in modern history not 25 years prior to this battle, and whereas the failure of these early Ukrainian states can be attributed in part to foreign agents (both political leaders and paramilitary units) whose goals were eventually realized when the USSR gained control of the territory, any claim of "liberation" is suspect since self-rule would not return to this territory until 1991. Furthermore, other nations in the west who were "liberated" from Nazi occupation achieved self-rule after their "liberation".

I think we should discuss each disagreement discretely and focus on the respective arguments contained therein in as detached a manner as possible, seeing as how this might touch upon sensitive topics for some.--tufkaa 00:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The case is really very simple: the Soviets kicked the Nazis out (which is good), but then themselves once again occupied the land (which is not). Which of the two totalitarian regimes was worse is to be disscussed at National Socialism and Communism and is beyond the scope of this article. Here a neutral term should be used.

A few extremely stupid arguments have been used: one is that the government officials use the term liberation, note however that they are politicians and use political, not encylopedical language, the government has chosen to attempt to appease the Russians (btw just recall with what rabid hatered Russia reacted when leaders of the Baltic state refused to legitimize the Russian victory celebrations with their presence one year ago today). Even worse is the claim that Ukraine could have just left the Soviet Union as it did in 1991, recall to what happened to Czechoslovakia and Hungary, which actually were formally independent states, of course the sort of people that make such an argument will probably argue that the Soviet Union was asked to help by the silent majority and had to defend those states from Nazism, Americans and the Vatican. I think someone should go other this page and delete all posts making obviously absurd claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.25.31.2 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous, the point is not what politicans use but what historians use. Please read the discussion carefully if you want to jump in. --Irpen 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I glanced through the disscussion and but it clearly refers to official government use, never the less the second paragraph of my post is just an ilustration (and there are many more stupid arguments used, and most of disscussion consists of repiting the over and over, and expressing well deserved but irrelevent in this context admiration for the individual soldiers instead of presenting some arguments for to allow the use word liberation to imposing half a century of communist rule by the soviet army). Please comment on the first paragraph.

BTW I have noticed that it seems most of the people most agressivley opposing using neutral wording are Russians, while the ones demanding neutral wording are Ukrianians or of the closely related (and today with very cordial mutual political relations) Polish. This alone strikes me as a serious problem turning the article into a political debate instead of adressing the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.25.31.2 (talk • contribs)

Communism and Nazism are too oposite things. Ukrainians fought against the Germans for their land to live on it. Today on the news millions of Kievans celebrated Victory over Nazism. Had Kiev not been liberated it would have been a German colonial city right now with Ukrainian population exterminated. That is the difference. Nobody has the right to challenge the actions that those brave men and women did to achive victory 61 years ago. There is no double standards for eastern and western fronts. As for nationality then know this my ancestors are Zaporozhian Cossacks whilst my wife is from Western Ukraine, oh and Poles are not Ukrainians, that is a rediculous comment.--Kuban Cossack

18:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

First, care to read the discussion, not "glance through it". We are talking mainly about the Western historians' usage. Govs are mentioned only sparingly. Second, register, it would make a debate easier. Third, don't call what other people say "stupid". It is offensive and useless. Third, and most importantly, don't stereotype the nationalities. It is even more offensive and useless. Besides, you happen to be wrong here by generalizing over both Ukrainians and Poles. Just shows you didn't read what you are commenting on. The issue here is not who was better and who was worse. The issue is the usage of the word most accepted in the historiography. The historiography is the main source for the articles. Please care to read the entire discussion (not glance through it), as a courtesy to its participants, before providing giving any further comments. --Irpen 18:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost communism is no more the opposite of national socialism then typhus is opposite of plague. Second this isn't a place for "what-if"ing, the third reich could have just as well gradually decayed after Hitlers death and eventaully collapsed under it's own weight and outside pressure as it could have lasted for a 1000 years, none of this is relevent here. I belive I have already addressed cynicly wiping ones mouth with the people who fought in this war and am not going to return to it. As for the eastern and western fronts the situation there were radically diffrent and it's absurd to pretend it's neutral to describe both the same way. And finally I really do not see the use of continuing to disscus with someone who belives he can set the clock back by 20 years by writing nonsense.

and on the margin, you are aware that your communist heroes murdered far more Russians then they did any of the other conquered nations. Of course you are going likely to reply with something like "there were mistakes but back then Russia was strong and respected" so don't bother.

As for mr. Irpen. I do not know what went on in the heads of Western historians, it's likely they simply copied the term with out giving much thought to it or tried to apply Western standards to situation without fully understanding, never the less we are not those people and we are aware of how life under soviet rule looked (I assume this applies also to you). When a comment is clearly absurd how would you describe it, how for example would describe comparing McCarthyism with a regime that is responsible for murdering tens of millions of people? As for Poles and Ukrainians I freely confess that I'm not intimitly familiar with either of them, however it's well known that those nations are closely related (I've been told that Ukrainians are closer to Slovaks but there are less of those and they don't have common history, but this is OT). I only know a few Poles and Ukrainians but the similiarity of their languages is quite striking to me. I'd like to clearly point out the issue here is usage of neutral language (required by wikipedia policies) it is not about how you remeber the soviet union or what you think of surrounding nations and there is really no use to attempt to find some clever tricks to preserve biased languages as it won't change any of that anyway.

Firstly, please sign your comments and timestamp them, like this: ~~~~.

Secondly, please discuss content and not the person writing it (as in WP:NPA)

Thirdly, "As for the eastern and western fronts the situation there were radically diffrent and it's absurd to pretend it's neutral to describe both the same way." <-- why so? Was it only populated by angels?

Finally, "I do not know what went on in the heads of Western historians, it's likely they simply copied the term with out giving much thought to it or tried to apply Western standards to situation without fully understanding". Sorry for my language, but this is complete BS. Do you really think that Western historians are all complete morons that just copy things without thinking about them a single second??? Don't forget that even in the midst of cold war, where every reason was good for dipping USSR in the mud, the vocabulary used by the historians did not change...

And please avoid personal attacks, again. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I sincerley apologize if I have somehow unwillingly offended you, it was not my intention to claim that somehow all Russians are evil imperialists or anything of that sort, quite to the contrary working at a large international petrolium company I meet a lot of young, educated Russians and most of them are really nice people. None are interested in reconquering anything but simply in supporting their families, buying house and so on, not unlike our European or American pears, and living their life in Russia. As for what was happening 60 years ago, no the western front was not populated by angles, nor was the eastern by devils, there were however deep diffrences the two. The most important of them is that USA and UK weren't led criminal genocidal regimes and their leadership was interested in eliminating the nazi threat not in reconquering territories they have previously occupied and then expanding their rule further (and lest you forget Stalin set out to that goal together with Hitler before the 2nd changed his mind regarding this alliance). As for western historians I wouldn't go so far as to call them morons, I'd guess they were simply ignorant of Eastern Europe, had no way on conducting research on place and most refugees that could provied information about what was actually going in the soviet union were from Russia and themselves biased. I don't really see why you cling to the fact that historians used the word "liberate" instead of stepping back looking at situation and thinking what actually happend the nations of soviet republic free, Ukrainians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Estonians and so on aren't celebrating liberation only the end of the war perhaps this differs from your take on the events but I would ask that strive to describe them in neutral terms. --217.25.31.2 05:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"The most important of them is that USA and UK weren't led criminal genocidal regimes"

Yeah... UK had a colonial empire they ruled with an iron hand and USA had a racial apartheid... Sure they were perfect... Talk to me about criminal...

"I don't really see why you cling to the fact that historians used the word "liberate" instead of stepping back looking at situation and thinking what actually happend the nations of soviet republic free". What happened to them??? Did they get exterminated? I still see Ukrainans and Georgians around, and they seem pretty much alive. An example: during Nazi occupation of Kiev, its population dropped to less than 100,000 people. This is utter extermination. Even if Stalin was what he was, these people were liberated and rescued.

And on 9 May, every soviet republic celebrated the victory, and still do by the way.

Oh and btw, I'm not even Russian, i just have a strong allergy to BS... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If you really had an allergy to BS what you wrote above would have killed you on the spot. I can't belive I'm actually seeing someone using the negro lynching argument, it seems as if I'm back in my school days. Had the Americans deported them to Alaska maybe one could try to compare it and still it wouldn't be any where near even the amount of people the soviet have murdered of their own. The above post like this clearly shows that this disscussion isn't about what it should but about trying to defend the "glory" of the soviet union from all those traitorus republics. btw have you noticed UK hasn't tried to colonize Europe and the USA hasn't forced racial discrimination upon it? As for your argument it has allready been repelled by others before I joined the disscussion, please read through it. --217.25.31.2 15:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trolling this article with OT. Seriously it your comments I myself do not quite understand as they are ridden with POV and insults. As for murdering people of their own, well in Russia the Death Penalty is not in use unlike in states, and no double standards are not allowed for Western or Eastern fronts. --Kuban Cossack

15:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazaks equating the victims of soviet crimes with murderers and rapists sentenced by courts is truely sickening. I shall never be able where such vile hatred comes from. I am forced to ask that this users disgusting comments be removed from this page. --217.25.31.2 18:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may, who are you to order someone such a thing? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Partisan contribution

If the recent info added to Soviet_partisan#Major_battles is correct, might want to flesh out the partisan involvement here in operations "Rails War" and "Concerto". heqs 09:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's already in my to-do. I think Rails war should get a seperate article. And actually, there were IIRC 3 stages of it, not just in 1943... -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Staying on Topic

The "discussion" has again broken down into put-downs and disputing each others personal beliefs. Please refrain from further bickering and try to focus on how this dispute relates to WP precedent, voicing your opinions on each disagreement discretely and focusing on the respective arguments contained therein, in as detached a manner as possible:

WHEREAS, "liberate" has been used historically, and continues to be used presently, to describe both this specific incident and other battles where Soviet forces drove back German invaders in WWII, as WP editors we are bound to use such conventions.

vs.

WHEREAS, "liberation" has been used historically to describe these battles, WP's NPOV policy trumps the need to adhere to mainstream or majority opinions on the matter.

WHEREAS, WP describes "liberation" as often understood as "to be freed (or change) from not having freedom to having freedom", and still other definitions cited included "to set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control", under the direction of Stalin (who ruled before and after WWII), the quashing of dissent through executions, religious persecution, forced mass relocations, and deportation to labor camps hardly qualified the USSR as a free society.

vs.

WHEREAS, the condition of Soviet life can be debated elswhere, we apply the term "liberation" to western victories over the German/Axis powers, and to not do so with Soviet victories represents a POV bias.

WHEREAS, the Soviet troops who drove back the German/Axis forces were not foreign invaders but rather people native to the area who fought valiantly to regain control of there homeland, and suffered tremendous losses in the process, to remove the tag of "liberation" would not accurately reflect what these people fought and died for.

vs.

WHEREAS, the citizens inhabiting the area of present-day Ukraine had already declared sovereignty for the first time in modern history not 25 years prior to this battle, and the failure of these early Ukrainian states can be attributed in part to foreign agents (both political leaders and paramilitary units) whose goals were eventually realized when the USSR gained control of the territory, any claim of "liberation" is suspect since self-rule would not return to this territory until 1991. Furthermore, other nations in the west who were "liberated" from Nazi occupation achieved self-rule after their "liberation".

Seeing as how this might touch upon sensitive topics for some, please limit the put-downs.--tufkaa 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

WHEREAS, "liberate" has been used historically, and continues to be used presently, to describe both this specific incident and other battles where Soviet forces drove back German invaders in WWII, as WP editors we are bound to use such conventions. -- YES. This word is used in almost all available books and still used (and was used today since it's 9 May), and as Wikipedians we have to stick to traditionnally used terms.

WHEREAS, the condition of Soviet life can be debated elswhere, we apply the term "liberation" to western victories over the German/Axis powers, and to not do so with Soviet victories represents a POV bias. YES As I said, enough POV-pushing. USA, UK and USSR were allies, they should get similar treatment, including this.

WHEREAS, the Soviet troops who drove back the German/Axis forces were not foreign invaders but rather people native to the area who fought valiantly to regain control of there homeland, and suffered tremendous losses in the process, to remove the tag of "liberation" would not accurately reflect what these people fought and died for. -- YES again. These people did not fought for some ideal of whatever, they fought against their own extermination'. It was Germans or them, it was as simple as that. Otherwise, Soviet soldiers (Russians, Ukrainians and every other nation included in USSR) would not basically dig themselves into the ground to survive... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The first disagreement seems to be a yes-or-no answer: either WP:NPOV trumps mainstream/moajority opinion or it doesn't. Only if WP:NPOV trumps mainstream/moajority opinion should we move on to the next disagreement.
The next disagreement asks for a definition of "liberation": in my opinion, and judging by most definitions I've come across, "liberation" is equated with "freedom" first and foremost, rather than a transfer of power through military force regardless of freedom. In contrast to the first disagreement, I think that this debate will require an extended discussion past a simple yes or no. If use of the term "liberation" is inseparable with the concept of freedom, only then should we continue to the last question.
The third disagreement asks, "What was the condition of the 'liberated'? Were the people free or not?" This will require the most extended discussion, but please don't skip ahead to this disagreement without settling the others. If the first two disagreements are settled, then this disagreement, which is perhaps the hardest to settle of all, will not have to drag us down into the muck of personal beliefs.--tufkaa 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement #1

WHEREAS, "liberate" has been used historically, and continues to be used presently, to describe both this specific incident and other battles where Soviet forces drove back German invaders in WWII, as WP editors we are bound to use such conventions.
vs.
WHEREAS, "liberation" has been used historically to describe these battles, WP's NPOV policy trumps the need to adhere to mainstream or majority opinions on the matter.

Well, let's start with the first disagreement. IMNSHO, using non-mainstream vocabulary (we're not talking about opinions here), is OR and as such should be forbidden per WP:NOR. Imagine if some Nazi dick would attempt to remplace "Killing" (in regard of the thousands of German feeble-minded people that were exterminated by Nazis) by "sanitization" or something like that because it's neutral. I think that everybody would go through the roof. Well, this case is no exception. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiev - one year ago--Kuban Cossack

22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To weigh in ONLY on the first issue, whether "NPOV" trumps "Accepted Usage", I'd have to concur with Grafikm's argument. Neutrality is not the only policy to be considered. --Habap 14:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There has to be some basic ranking of the respective WP doctrines, otherwise all disputes would end in chaos. If I did not consider WP:NPOV as superior to other doctrines, then wouldn't I be forced to restate blatant POV arguments because of the preponderance of their usage? Frankly, considering WP:NPOV subservient to other doctrines renders it inert.--tufkaa 15:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that in this context WP:NOR outweights WP:NPOV. Otherwise, we would be able to rewrite all WWII history from Suvorov's BS, for instance... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is indeed a very important policy. However, as it was said above multitude of times, it is equally a policy of Britannica and Columbia. Similarly, all respected historians, if they want to still be respected, have to write neutrally. The usage of this word by all of the above as well as other respected reference books is a proof that the word is usable here as well. --Irpen 17:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As it was already mentioned above by User:Mbuk, not all articles about WWII events in Ukraine use the word 'liberate', so if this word is not present in the article, it would not violate WP:NOR. On the other hand, using this word in the article does violate WP:NPOV. Using this word in "respected reference books" does not imply it's neutrality.--AndriyK 17:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, Britannica and Columbia are less neutral than user:AndriyK. Just coinsidentally, the POV of the latter was described by an ArbCom as "an aggressive Ukrainian nationalist position". Poor Britannica, I must say. --Irpen 18:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My person is not the subject of the discussion.--AndriyK 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not about your person. It is about how seriously your judgement of NPOV chould be taken. --Irpen 18:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Please watch out for the steady decline of conversation as we jump ahead of ourselves, and veer off topic. We still need to determine whether WP:NPOV can even trump WP:NOR. The answer to the first disagreement seems to be a draw: it appears that there is no clear supremacy amongst the different WP policies, and that each article must adhere to a particular mix of NOR, NPOV, etc... In this article and others WP:NOR can overrule WP:NPOV in some instances and in others WP:NPOV can overrule WP:NOR for a variety of reasons, and all that matters is that most editors agree. Some parties present believe, however, that in this particular circumstance (using "liberate"), a POV dispute does not apply. We can return to the question of its application to this article after examining the next disagreement, which essentially attempts to define "liberation" for the context of this dispute. For further resolution of WP:NOR vs. WP:NPOV, please continue here, otherwise move on to the next question.--tufkaa 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV trumps common usage. 1) This is a WP policy, so WP articles should follow it. 2) "Everybody else does it" is not a justification with merit. PatrickFisher 09:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement #2

WHEREAS, WP describes "liberation" as often understood as "to be freed (or change) from not having freedom to having freedom", and still other definitions cited included "to set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control", under the direction of Stalin (who ruled before and after WWII), the quashing of dissent through executions, religious persecution, forced mass relocations, and deportation to labor camps hardly qualified the USSR as a free society.
vs.
WHEREAS, the condition of Soviet life can be debated elswhere, we apply the term "liberation" to western victories over the German/Axis powers, and to not do so with Soviet victories represents a POV bias.

To me the definition of "liberate" is clear, and it involves agreed upon principles of freedom. The only possible work-around I could imagine would be the use of a particular military definition that does not take into account the concepts of "freedom" or "liberty". This would be highly circumspect in my opinion, however, due to the preponderance of definitions tying "liberation" with "freedom".--tufkaa 18:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You said it yourself: To set free from foreign control. So in this context, "liberation" referts to "liberation of Soviet land from German occupation" and should be applied to every city or place located inside 1941 URSS borders. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The quoted definition was "to set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control". Wouldn't it be a stretch to accept "to set free... from... foreign control," while at the same time contradicting "to set free, as from oppression, [or] confinement"? The definition is "to set free," while "as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control" is a secondariy statement meant to further elaborate on the subject. In an instance where you would set up conflicts with the majority of the opinion ("free," "oppression," "confinement") while adhering to only one part ("foreign control"), it is my understanding that an editor would substitute "liberate" with a word whose entire definition fits the statement.--tufkaa 22:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What does "free" means, in your opinion? It can encompass a whole lot of things. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercising one's right and powers.
Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
Not controlled by obligation or the will of another: felt free to go.
Having political independence.
Governed by consent and possessing or granting civil liberties: a free citizenry.
Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government: a free press.
To set at liberty; make free: freed the slaves; free the imagination.
State of being at liberty rather than in confinement or physical restraint.
Power of determinig one's or its own action.
The power to make one's own choices or decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
Civil liberty, as opposed to to subjection to an arbitraryor despotic government.
Political or national independence.
Personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery.
Ease or facility of movement or action.

The preponderance of definitions contradict the conditions in pre- and post-war Soviet Ukraine.--tufkaa 03:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Then apply the same definitions to post-war USA with its racial segregation or to UK with its colonial empire and understand why what you just wrote is just enormous BS. And if you think that press is free somewhere - dream on... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't "what you think about the USA". Yes the UK and USA did unexcusable things like oppressing racial mionorities, interning the Japanees during the war, breaking their own law to catch subversive elements, betraying allies and so on, and still do like things like using the death penalty or allowing abortion. But claining this somehow ofsets soviet crimes is simply an insult to the inteligance of any one who reads it.

It's like saying: yes this guy was a serial murderer but that other guy over there was driving while drunk so it O.K.

And if you really are somehow unable to see the fundament diffrence here at least just compare the scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.25.31.2 (talk • contribs)

Who said something about offsetting??? What I'm saying that tufkaa's definition of freedom is inherently flawed. Both USA and USSR were far from perfect and were not fulfilling that definition. And thus, since one uses the word "liberate" for Western Europe, one can use it as well for Eastern Front, especially since the Red Army liberated its own territory!!!. That's all. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To offset: to counterbalance, counteract, or compensate for something. To justify the use of "liberate", it is proposed that we justify its use not by its definition, but by the comparitive freedoms of enjoyed in other countries. I propose that we look at the actual definition of the word and determine if it fits as a proper descriptive word of the actions taken. Judging by the definition of the word, it does not match the conditions in both pre- and post-war Soviet Ukraine.--tufkaa 15:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"I propose that we look at the actual definition of the word".

This is called OR. Your opinion (as well as mine btw) has no value for historians. In all books, historians talk about "liberation" of Western Europe (and many use it for USSR too). Therefore, not using it for Eastern front would be POV (and bad faith too). USSR was liberating its own territory, like any other country would do. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if though we aren't getting through to each other. The soviet union was a criminal genocidal regime, the USA and UK were not. Regardless the shotcomming of those two countries the peopl, that lived in them were free. Were not disscussing some abstract metaphysical concept here: they did not need to fear every day for their property and their lives at the hands of their own government. They could worship God, engage in political debates, peacefully express discontent. They simply took all this for granted like we mostly do today (though this differs between various post soviet states). Situations in which those rights were limited were the exceptions not the norm. This is a well known, well documented and commonly accepted fact (even though even here we can find one vicious troll which disputes the very existence of soviet opression and no one seems to care about it).

Claiming the UK and USA weren't fundamentaly diffrent is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.25.31.2 (talk • contribs)

It is not a vicious troll... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not to use a substitute term in place of "liberate" is not the focus of this disagreement, and to bring NOR vs. NPOV into this discussion brings us right back to square one, which was an endless loop of reverts and disrespectful put-downs. This particular disagreement centers on whether it is accurate (outside of NOR vs. NPOV debates) to use the term "liberate" to describe the actions taken in the article. Where we are not "getting through to each other" is in not accepting each other's statements as coming from a factual place. With that said, I would like to acknowledge that it is correct to state that other references have described the vanquishing of the German forces in WWII as "liberating" acts. I guess what I'm looking for is a little more clarity when using the term "liberate", especially since its use here contradicts the majority of its definitions, if not the entire spirit of the word. However, it does not seem as if many people are willing to acknowledge even the meaning of the word or the inherent disconnect of using it in the context of the conditions prevalant in Stalin's USSR.--tufkaa 22:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Opression is disputed in itself. In any case all of the veterans that you saw on 9th may would not have been there had the USSR not liberated the territory. --Kuban Cossack

23:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

A bottom line of this discussion is that the vets were also present in the areas which were not liberated by the USSR in any way. And a similar dispute with Irpen is going on at Talk:Lviv, a town that was hardly liberated by the USSR - or rather it was liberated from the local population who were expelled from their homeland. //Halibu tt 05:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tufkaa, as per how you perceive this disagreement, could you say whether you view the term inapplicable to the Russian cities as well? Or it is only the issue with the cities in UA and BE? --Irpen 06:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Because he's a russophobic POV-pusher, there is no other reasons... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 07:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That explains it all Autograf, doesn't it? Errr... wrong, my dear. Please dispute with meritorical arguments and not with pro personam arguments. Similarly, one could say that your bragging here has only one reason - that you are a Russian yourself. Would it add anything to the discussion? I doubt it. //Halibu tt 07:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it would not explain nothing, because I'm not Russian. I'm not an ethnic Russian, I don't have Russian citizenship and I don't live in Russia. So your "reason" is void.

As for you, you're locking youself in a vicious circle, because you can't set the limit between "liberation" and "occupation". As Irpen said, where are you gonna set it? Was a city like Rostov liberated or occupated? And Minsk? And Kiev? And Warsaw?

For me, as long as you are on your own territory (=1941 USSR borders), you're liberating your own country from Nazi invaders. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We do not have to "set the limit between "liberation" and "occupation"". Instead we have to find a neutral wording to describe the facts.

Does any dictionary define the word "liberate" as "reclaming country's pre-war territory"? I do not think so.--AndriyK 08:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get the idea. It would've been void even if you were Russian or Martian or New-Guinean.

And the definition of "own territory" is yet another vicious circle. If the part of Poland occupied by the USSR in 1939 was a "Soviet territory" in 1941, then so was the part occupied by Germany a "German territory" then. Following that logic, we'd have to rewrite history, as what is called the Warsaw Uprising, for instance, would have to be renamed to Warsaw Revolt, as by your logic the Poles revolted against their legitimate government in Berlin.

That's why I prefer not to use POV words such as liberation at all. There are lots of better alternatives which allow us to overcome the difficulties. //Halibu tt 08:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because Poland never surrendered and was still at war with Germany.

As for your last sentence, the trouble is that you want to replace a point that might be POV with even more POV. So please spare me your stories about barbarian Russians occupying the good and free Ukrainians. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then please be so kind as to tell me what's more POV: The Soviets liberated Lwów in 1944 or The Soviets occupied Lwów in 1944? Both are right and both are wrong. I'd go for The Soviets took over Lwów in 1944 or The Soviets gained control over Lwów in 1944, as these would be undisputable, contrary to liberation/occupation circle. //Halibu tt 09:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Lwow was Soviet territory as of 22 June 1941, therefore it was liberated from German occupation. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right, and Stalingrad was German territory as of January 1, 1943, therefore it was occupied by the Soviets. //Halibu tt 10:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First, Stalingrad was never completely captured by German forces.

Second, on 22 June, 1941, Germany invaded URSS, starting a war. Therefore, any territory possessed by URSS as of 22 June 1941 were occupied by German forces and liberated later by Soviet forces.

Conclusion: you're a bad-faith POV-pusher. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To Grafikm_fr: Why did you ignore my question?

Does any dictionary define the word "liberate" as "reclaming by a country its pre-war territory" or it's your own interpretation?--AndriyK 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

From this very wiki: Liberation : "A major use of the word is the act of the (forcible) removal of unwanted control of an area, person or people by an outside (sometimes military) force.". For the URSS, German control was unwanted and it liberated its own territory. Any other questions? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As you see, the article you cited says nothing about the pre-war status of the area, so all your argument concerning "own territory" is irrelevant.

The point is that one "unwanted control of an area" was replaced by another unwanted control. Why should we call this "liberation"?--AndriyK 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Unwanted by whom? By Ukrainians? Certainly not, as most of them fought either in the Red Army or in the partizans? That pretty much explains everything...

Don't generalize your little nationalist phantasms to everyone please... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It was certainly unwanted by those who lost their relatives in 1933 and who died in 1946 famine. There were also other partisans, not only pro-Soviet ones.

There were certainly Stalin supproters who wanted the Communist regime to be restored. But there were millions of those who did not want its restoration. Therefore, either "wanted" or "unwanted" is a POV. Consequently, both "liberation" and "occupation" are also POVs. Therefore we have to find a neutral word.--AndriyK 18:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to repeat my question addressed to Tufkaa whether his considering "liberation" inapropriate equally applies to the cities of the Russian Federation (Rostov, Smolensk). Does he sees it as objectionable for the cities of Ukraine (Kiev and Lviv) as of Russia.

Grafikm_fr, I think you are mistaken to call Tufkaa (not some others here) a Russophobic POV pusher. He didn't say, like someone above that it was Soviet reoccupation (sic)[1] or "Nazi occupation was bad and soviet "occupation" (sic) was no better".[2] Neither, like another fellow right above here, he tries to use an inapplicable analogy between the Soviet '39 advance into Western Ukraine (certainly occupation) with '43-'45 advance into the same Ukraine and even the rest of Europe. Tufkaa is the only opponent of the term who actually tries to listen here and talk about issues one by one.

The other two talk nothing new. Speaking about German liberation of Kiev or Lviv in '41 by Halibutt and claiming it to be one and the same doesn't really warrant a serious response. However, I think talking with Tufkaa makes sense and I would like to hear his opinion on that.

Let's just but some framework on this. We can't use the terms not established in the respectable literature. As such, Halibutt's "German liberation of Kiev" {1941) or of Lviv or of whatever analogies do not really merit a response. --Irpen 17:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you know that I do not mind defining frameworks and so on, and I'm all for finding an acceptable solution that does not violate WP:NOR Unfortunately, as you said, as long as some guys and some other guys will hang here, the moment we'll remove the page's protection, edit wars will restart... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I get the sad impression that you are simply trying to find something to attempt to discredit a contributor you dislike by intentionally pretending to misunderstand what he said. I carefully studied what mr. Halibutt said and it's absolutley obvious that he is not claiming Germans liberated anything but simply pointing out the absurdity of the identical claim made towards the soviets, thus proving how you are applying double standards to the two totalitarianisms.

also I noticed how you don't seem to mind a genuine troll equating the victims of soviet repression to common criminals (or actually particulary deprived ones) and in other places disputing those repressions ever took place. It seems as though you fail to care this simply becouse that troll shares your POV on this particular issue. --217.25.31.2 09:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not applying a double standard to anyone. Territories that were belonging to URSS as of 22 June 1941, were, from a strictly military point of view, occupied by German and liberated by Soviet troops later one. Politics have nothing to do with that. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, liberation is not a military term but a political. The very point of disscussion is (or at least should be) not similarites and diffrences between national socialists and communists but replacing a political term ("liberated" which is clearly positivly charged and wrong in this context) with a neutral technical military term like "retook". The term "retook" clearly indicates soviets controlled this territory before Germans did and avoids making judgment toward the legitimicy of their rule there (this judgment belongs in articles like "history of Ukraine" and "soviet union" not in every article about every battle fought). --217.25.31.2 19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

From Liberation: A major use of the word is the act of the (forcible) removal of unwanted control of an area, person or people by an outside (sometimes military) force.

In this context, it is a military term. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This clearly is an (arguably clever) attempt to use a semantical trick to back an apriori concived thesis. We are not however in law school and should study the spirit not the letter. It is clear the word "liberation" has positive emotional values associated with it. By literally applying the above definition one could indeed argue that Ukraine was liberated in 1941 as an outside military force (the nazis) has removed unwanted control (the soviets) from an area (Ukraine). It is however painfully clear that the Ukrainians weren't free by either of those two events --217.25.31.2 21:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why I want to hear from Tufkaa on that. His approach was exactly establishing frameworks and dealing with issues one by one. So, let's wait until he gets online and tells us whether he would equally object to suing liberation for Rostov and Smolensk as he does for Kiev and Lviv. The liteature use the term for all of those and never to describe a German assault. --Irpen 17:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

OK by me. Let's hear his opinion on this matter. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if liberate does not mean "set free" to everybody, it certainly does to some. Doesn't that end the debate? If a lot of people think it has that meaning, it does have that meaning. PatrickFisher 09:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is "some" means "just 2 or 3 POV-pushers" here. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And what makes you think that you're not just a part of a group of two or three Russian nationalist POV-pushers yourself? After all you call the Soviet occupation of Poland legitimate... Can't you just discuss with thoughts and arguments rather than with pro personam arguments?

Anyway, I'd like my honourable friends who support the liberation scheme to respond to a single easy question: what's so cool in the word it can't be replaced with some other that wouldn't be disputed? //Halibu tt 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask you a different question: what's so cool in edit wars? Probably nothing. Then why do I see a lot of them on Ukraine and Poland-related pages?

And even if I make a NPOV version (and I actually have one sitting on my HD), it won't suit some people who will continue their POV-pushing about how vile Russians went enslaving poor Ukrainians and Poles. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We should stick to NPOV not to suite specific people (regardless of your appraisal of them and generally your opion of Russians, Poles and Ukrainians), but because to quote directly from WP:NPOV "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle", it is "absolute and non-negotiable." and "and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." There is no place for geographical and ideological bias here. And there certainly is no place for rhetorical technique like Straw man or Slippery slope. --217.25.31.2 08:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Easy! It is simply the appropriate word, used by the mainstream sources, all major encyclopedias, major WWII historians as well as the modern governments of the territories we are talking about. For any statement (like the Earth is round, the Holocaust exterminated the European Jewery and other similar well known) there may be someone that would dispute it. As such, we cannot accomodate the article to account for objections of the holders of the fringe views like those who compare it with calling Barbarossa "liberation of Kiev from Bolshevism", or those who call the Soviet repulsion of the Nazi invasion a "Soviet occupation of Ukraine which wasn't better than the Nazi" one. I hope you now see why. --Irpen 23:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

We know the definition of the world liberation : it is often understood as "to be freed (or change) from not having freedom to having freedom Being controlled by Stalinist regime that had a whole system of Gulags and massive executions were regular part of state's activities I certainly don't see how the word can be used. --Molobo 23:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is used in books. Like it or not, but it is used by Western historians, widely. And if we change the wording, it will be OR. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it doesn't fill the liberation definiton and if this word will be used an explanation will have to follow that it was a military liberation and no freedom was gained by it. Furthermore they are countless scholars, modern governments, countries who would oppose such terminoly. Why not use a neutral word. What's so great about using wrong term ? --Molobo 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And what's so great about POV-pushing so you use it all the time on just about every article involving Poland? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as an historian who has read more than a few books on World War II - I side with the use of the word "liberation". Having read all this talk (and boy is there a lot) I think the arguements are (1) it is very common usage in both primary AND secondary sources (2) it is how the people living in the Ukraine at the time thought about the arrival of the Soviet army. By and large the majority of the population in the Ukraine, based on how they reacted at the time, were glad to see the Soviet army. This was not Soviet propaganda, this was the large-scale response by the population. See the recently published book "A writer at war" (Antony Beevor, 2005) pg. 267 etc.). To assert that - contrary to what the people thought at the time - that the Soviet army was not liberating the Ukraine from a hated (and hateful) rule by the Nazi goverment; is not supported by the overwhelming weight of historical evidence. Cglassey 01:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the point of view quite a few people here defend (with the exception of 2 or 3 POV-pushers)...

But you know, that's what nationalist POV-pushing is all about: don't let the facts get in your way... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 07:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed second sentence

During a four-month campaign, Soviet troops cleared the left shore of the Dnieper, crossed it in force, and created several bridgeheads on the right shore, advancing into Kiev as well.

This avoids the nonsense about liberate using military terms instead of political ones. I think that liberate is just fine in general, but "liberated the left shore" sounded like a bad translation of a political tract instead of an English-language description of a military action. --Habap 14:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, if you asked me. //Halibu tt 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not perfect if you ask me. It is an insult to all people that fought and died during WWII (and it was previously discussed btw, see archives...) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No it does not insult all those people and I would apriciate that you not claim to represent them all. Despite what you might think the vast majority fought not for the soviet union and socialism but simply against Germans. Claiming the soviets were liberators is an insult to the nations they ruled over, especially to the people they have murdered and to their families. --217.25.31.2 16:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And claiming they were not is a DIRECT insult to the millions of veterans and 26.6 million Soviet lives that we lost in the war. Our grandparents fought for our land so that we could live on it. I will not argue that Soviet life was a paradise, but then given the fact that our postwar growth exceeded the whole of the western world...--Kuban Cossack

16:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I'm not talking about nations like Poland, Hungary and so on. For them the word "liberation" could indeed be questioned.

But for territories that were part of URSS as of 22 June 1941, no way...

Yes, these territories were taken by force. So what? EVERY nation in this world expanded by war. France, UK, USA, Russia... you name it, you got it. That's the way history is... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as insulting to remove "liberated Kiev", but I think the argument against using it is silly and political. However, there are so many other things that need our interest, I thought this would be a reasonable proposal.

Can we at least agree that "liberated the left bank" is a silly an uncomfortable "word construct"? --Habap 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Silly and political? Maybe, but so is the argument for removing it. Sure, vile Russians went to enslave good Ukrainians. .. yeah, I know the tune...

I do not mind sometimes replacing "liberation" with something else in some places, but this word has to appear in the text. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you - the argument for removing "liberate Kiev" is silly and political. --Habap 23:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhhh!!!! Finally we're getting somewhere!!! :) *shakes Habap's hand* -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd only like to point out that wiki is not a soapbox, we do not write this Encyclopedia to make a certain group of people happier. If not mentioning the Soviet Army's actions as liberation is indeed offensive to Red Army veterans, then why are they more important than those enslaved by the USSR, for whom the opposite is offensive? I'll repeat it again, as nobody seems to notice my argument: on one extreme we have a liberation, on the other we have occupation. Why not meet in between, at some neutral term? //Halibu tt 19:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Because no one but yourself and AndriyK call the '44 assault on the Nazis by the Red Army "an occupation". We can't meet in between when the ends are defined by the holders of fringe views. Some say that Holocaust didn't happen and some say the earth is flat. We don't accomodate the articles to heed to such views. --Irpen 19:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

So, can we look just at "liberated the left bank"? That is just terrible writing. --Habap 23:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against replacing "liberated the left bank" with "advancing" or whatever floats your boat :)))

Unfortunately, it won't resolve the dispute because there are some guys that are just a bit too... well, stubborn, you know... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Grafikm, but you are so emotionally involved here, it's part of the problem. I'm with tufkaa and Halibutt; I think a neutral, military description is best. Dammit, my grandfather rolled onto the beach in Normandy in his tank and I hate evil propaganda and oppression with a passion but I put that into my blog, not Wikipedia! Wikipedia is not a soapbox. PatrickFisher 10:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The proposed wording seems like an honest attempt at NPOV resolution. It doesn't take away from the accomplishments of any of tyhe forces involved.--tufkaa 02:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, your views are as extremist as those who say that it was yet another occupation. You did not read my comments well enough to notice that I do not propose to change it to ocupation; I merely point out at the other end of the extremist views - just opposite to yours.

Such downgrading your opponents just because they don't agree with you is not a step in the good direction. Nevertheless, I still believe there is a compromise possible - and it is needed. Too bad you don't feel such a need. //Halibu tt 06:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Halibutt. Occupation is indeed an extremist view. As for what you call "the opposite", i.e. liberation it is a mainstream view, not at all an extremist one. It is the view of most scholars and, besides, the majority of people in Ukraine as well as of the current Ukrainian government since the anniversaries of liberation ((lang-uk|vyzvolennya}} are called as such and are celebrated at the state level. --Irpen 07:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And the people expelled from Lwów by the Soviets feel liberated as well? Prove it right, Irpen. //Halibu tt 08:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, what you seem to miss is that our opinion as well is yours is not the problem. In mainstream historiography, most sources, both Western and Russian, use this word. Therefore, suggesting something else is original research and cannot be because of WP:NOR. Wikipedia is NOT a place for historical revisionism. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I can't seem to find mention of the "liberation of Lwów" in this article. Why is it relevant here? --Habap 13:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a place for historical revisionism Mentioning the fact that Lwow was part of Poland and not Soviet Union till 1945 or the fact that occupying Soviet forces mass murdered Poles is revisionism ? --Molobo 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway Soviet presence meant NKVD executions, deportations and persecution of Polish people. How can that be described as liberation ? --Molobo 17:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No one is talking about Poland here. We're talking about Ukraine (Eastern Ukraine, notice it, not West Ukraine) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So you agree that it shouldn't be used in context of Lwow ? --Molobo 18:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the subject of the dispute. Let's deal with one issue at a time, please. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like a contrast that could show where the word liberation is proper and where not. To know the full aspect of the problem I would like to know if you believe that Lwow can be called liberated and then we could compare the situation. --Molobo 18:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The population of Poland fell with about 6 million during the nazi 5 year occupation. After the Soviets liberated Poland did the population contiune in the same pattern down or did it go up during the next 5 years? If it went up then it must be a liberation if it went down then it must be an occupation (Deng 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

That is really weird definition and defenitly original research. Palestine today has the highest natural growth, does that also mean it is the most free and should be refered to as "liberated territories" instead of "occupied territories"?

As I previously stated in this very section, I apply the word "liberate" (in WWII context obviously) to any city that belonged to URSS as of 22 June 1941, including Lvov. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As I previously stated in this very section, I apply the word "liberate" (in WWII context obviously) to any city that belonged to URSS as of 22 June 1941, including Lvov You are agreeing then to onesided annexations of territory by states invading other states ? Does it mean you believe areas annexed by Germany in WW2 should be described as German and military actions taking place in them by local population are revolts and military operations made by countries that possesed those areas are invasion ? If not please explain why.

The population of Poland fell with about 6 million during the nazi 5 year occupation. After the Soviets liberated Poland did the population contiune in the same pattern down or did it go up during the next 5 years? If it went up then it must be a liberation if it went down then it must be an occupation I fail to see what population changes have to do with the fact of living in freedom. A slave owner can breed slaves and increase their population also, it doesn't mean they are free. --Molobo 18:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation Liberation is based on the word liberty, related to the word liberal, and it is often understood as "to be freed (or change) from not having freedom to having freedom". A major use of the word is the act of the (forcible) removal of unwanted control of an area, person or people by an outside (sometimes military) force.

I certainly don't see how can one argue that people gained freedom by becoming part of Soviet Union. --Molobo 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what follows? A major use of the word is the act of the (forcible) removal of unwanted control of an area, person or people by an outside (sometimes military) force. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read what proceeds this text: Liberation is based on the word liberty, related to the word liberal, and it is often understood as "to be freed (or change) from not having freedom to having freedom I don't believe we can say people gained freedom by becoming part of Soviet Union-they simply had their occupation changed. --Molobo

The poles didnt live in slavery after they were liberated by the Soviets, life became many many times better for the poles then it was during the nazies. The nazies did inslave the poles and did very efficiently exterminate the poles. The Soviets did not. This is what happened to the poles during nazi rule; Large numbers were expelled from areas intended for German colonisation, and forced to resettle in the General-Government area. Hundreds of thousands of Poles were deported to Germany for forced labour in industry and agriculture, where many thousands died. Poles were also conscripted for labour in Poland, and were held in labour camps all over the country, again with a high death rate. There was a general shortage of food, fuel for heating and medical supplies, and there was a high death rate among the Polish population as a result. Finally thousands of Poles were killed as reprisals for resistance attacks on German forces or for other reasons. In all, about 3 million (non-Jewish) Poles died as a result of the German occupation, more than 10 percent of the pre-war population. When this is added to the 3 million Polish Jews who were killed as a matter of policy by the Germans, Poland lost about 22 percent of its population, the highest proportion of any country in World War II. Rather than through being sent to concentration camps, most non-Jewish Poles died through in mass executions starvation, singled out murder cases, ill-health or forced labour. Apart from Auschwitz, the main six "extermination camps" in Poland were used almost exclusively to kill Jews. There was also camp Stutthof concentration camp used for mass extermination of Poles. There were a number of civilian labor camps (Gemeinschaftslager) for Poles (Polenlager) on the territory of Poland. Many Poles did die in German camps. The first non-German prisoners at Auschwitz were Poles, who were the majority of inmates there until 1942, when the systematic killing of the Jews began. The first killing by poison gas at Auschwitz involved 300 Poles and 700 Soviet prisoners of war, among them ethnic Ukrainians, Russians and others. Many Poles and other Eastern Europeans were also sent to concentration camps in Germany: over 35,000 to Dachau, 33,000 to the camp for women at Ravensbruck, 30,000 to Mauthausen and 20,000 to Sachsenhausen, for example. And you believe this is is better then what happened after the Soviets liberated Poland??? (Deng 20:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

The poles didnt live in slavery after they were liberated by the Soviets, life became many many times better for the poles then it was during the nazies If for example a person is enslaved and beaten rather then murdered is his life better ?

http://www.projectinposterum.org/docs/chodakiewicz1.htm According to an underground newspaper of July 1945: It has been established that the NKVD and RB [sic UB] torture their prisoners terribly at the Chopin Street [police headquarters] in Lublin, at the Strzelecka Street [facility] in Warsaw, and in Włochy . The most popular methods of extracting confessions include ripping off fingernails slowly, applying “temple screws” [i.e., clamps that crush the victim’s skull], and putting on “American handcuffs.” The last named method causes the skin on one’s hands to burst and the blood to flow from underneath one’s fingernails. The torture is applied passionlessly in a premeditated manner. Those who faint are revived with a morphine shot. Before the torture session some receive booster shots [zastrzyki wzmacniające ]. The torturers strictly observe the opinion of the chief interrogating officer whether it is acceptable to allow the interrogated to die…. At the infamous Lublin Castle [prison], because of the injuries inflicted during interrogation, mortality among the political prisoners reaches 20 persons per week. This is how this "liberation" looked like. --Molobo 20:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

And you believe this is is better then what happened after the Soviets liberated Poland??? Soviets never liberated Poland. It was just another brutal occupation. Please stick to the topic and keep your personal views to discussion in private circles. --Molobo 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

They did liberate Poland. The facts speak for them selves. The treatment of the Poles was much better during the Soviet time the during the nazi time. There can be no comparison. (Deng 21:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

The treatment of the Poles was much better during the Soviet time the during the nazi time. Just because one regime murderes thousands rather then millions doesn't make it better or free. --Molobo 22:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that they were saved from a certain genocide... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Katyn ? --Molobo 15:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I did. So what? These were officers, military people, not civilian. And you can't compare 20000 officers with millions of Polish civilians sent to labor camps... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

with millions of Polish civilians sent to labor camps.

You mean the ones Soviet Union sent after 1939 from Eastern Poland(which resulted in hundreds of thousands dying) ? And yes Katyn was a genocide since it was aimed at exterminating Polish elites in order to impose control over another nation.

--Molobo 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Figures on the table please, and with scholarly Western sources. As for Katyn, killing officers is not a genocide, at worst a war crime. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And more importantly compare what the Soviets did to what the Nazies did the Soviets didnt do any of this; Large numbers were expelled from areas intended for German colonisation, and forced to resettle in the General-Government area. Hundreds of thousands of Poles were deported to Germany for forced labour in industry and agriculture, where many thousands died. Poles were also conscripted for labour in Poland, and were held in labour camps all over the country, again with a high death rate. There was a general shortage of food, fuel for heating and medical supplies, and there was a high death rate among the Polish population as a result. Finally thousands of Poles were killed as reprisals for resistance attacks on German forces or for other reasons. In all, about 3 million (non-Jewish) Poles died as a result of the German occupation, more than 10 percent of the pre-war population. When this is added to the 3 million Polish Jews who were killed as a matter of policy by the Germans, Poland lost about 22 percent of its population, the highest proportion of any country in World War II. Rather than through being sent to concentration camps, most non-Jewish Poles died through in mass executions starvation, singled out murder cases, ill-health or forced labour. Apart from Auschwitz, the main six "extermination camps" in Poland were used almost exclusively to kill Jews. There was also camp Stutthof concentration camp used for mass extermination of Poles. There were a number of civilian labor camps (Gemeinschaftslager) for Poles (Polenlager) on the territory of Poland. Many Poles did die in German camps. The first non-German prisoners at Auschwitz were Poles, who were the majority of inmates there until 1942, when the systematic killing of the Jews began. The first killing by poison gas at Auschwitz involved 300 Poles and 700 Soviet prisoners of war, among them ethnic Ukrainians, Russians and others. Many Poles and other Eastern Europeans were also sent to concentration camps in Germany: over 35,000 to Dachau, 33,000 to the camp for women at Ravensbruck, 30,000 to Mauthausen and 20,000 to Sachsenhausen, for example. This is what the nazies did the Soviets did NOT do this therfore treatment was NOT the same it was BETTER during the Soviet time (Deng 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

Excellent. I like it. It's neutral, and I certainly don't think neutrality dishonors anybody. My grandfather landed at Normandy, and I'm proud of it; in fact, I have very strong political and ideological beliefs. But this is not the place for it. PatrickFisher 09:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is only one problem Patrick... Even if we found a "neutral" wording, we'll still have a bunch of guys that will do their POV-pushing even on most neutral articles (see here, here, or here).

Give these nationalists a finger and they will snap your arm off, telling how the Russians were so evil and went to enslave these great Ukrainians that would probably already have colonized Jupiter satellites without Russian occupation, and how they went enslaving these Poles that invented the vodka (double offense, mind you, Russians got vodka from them and then went to enslave them...)

Even neutral wording won't prevent edit wars when dealing with nationalists.

So if they can POV-push, we can defend ourselves. --Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I once afraid have to remind that here we are disscussing whever an positivley emotianally charged word (like "liberated") can be used in the context of soviet driving out nazis, or should it be replace with a neutral one (like "retook"). We are not disscussing the matters related nor either of the articles you mentioned here, nor are we disscussing your general attitude towards Poles and Ukrainians (or Azerbaijanis or any other nationality, and we are not going to disscuss it any where since, with all do respect for you, your attitude to them is irrelevent). btw I haven't seen anyone saying anything about colonizing Jupiter sattelites except you.

your devagations here are additionally grotesque given the sort of outright troll you chose to associate yourself with. --217.25.31.2 13:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And I once again remind you that while I'm facing POV-pushers that won't even be satisfied with a NPOV version, I can defend myself. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This isn't suppose to be a game but an encylopedia. We can't keep soviet POV in this article in order to keep some alleged "POV-pushers" busy. When we finally adopt the NPOV version and others will wish to change it from "retook" to "reoccupied" or "enslaved" then we will disscuss that --217.25.31.2 13:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no Soviet POV, it is the POV of the Ukrainian state, it is the POV of 95 % of the Ukrainian population, it is the POV of more than 80% of western press. --Kuban Cossack

13:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No-no-no. It's not "when we will", it's "if they keep on their POV-pushing, then what"? It's a 100% certain event. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

from a purely psychological point of view, the longer and more agressivley you stand on your postion simply out of fear what will happen when you agree to stand down to a neutral one and if your selfcreated "enemies" won't be able to break through your lines then, the more likely it will actually happen then. --217.25.31.2 13:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "likely" or not, it is certain. One of them was banned for a month because of that, and the other one failed to get adminship. Pretty self-explanatory. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that if the article will be written from NPOV then it will certainly be attacked by POV pushers and therefore it has to be preempted by pushing soviet POV is really weird logic. --217.25.31.2 14:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have looked at the users you are afraid of (even though it's not really in any way relevent here). It seems the only reason the first one of them has been blocked is that he was less fluent in English and heavily outnumbered by editors presenting antiukrainian POV, I haven't noticed him doing anything really bad like flinging insult all around. The second one actually seems to be an excellent editor, his request for adminship had an overwhelming majority in support although I have noticed most of the opposition came from one specific editor (suprisingly also generally a fairly good one) who organised an aggressive and distastefull campaign against him. And while we're on the subject I've also noticed that "your" troll has repeatadley been blocked for vulgar behaviour and then mistreriously bailed out.

Now back on the subject WP:NPOV is a not optional it is a basic wikipedia policy and needs to be applied, even if you belive you are "facing POV-pushers that won't even be satisfied with a NPOV version". Also trying to claim using neutral wording somehow violates WP:NOR is absurd, it is a clear and incontrovertible fact the soviet retook Ukraine from the nazis. --217.25.31.2 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Either you assume bad faith, or (more likely) you're attempting to stage a flamewar. AndriyK got banned by the ArbCom, which is a kind of executive body which decision everyone should respect.

And no, it is not absurd. Even if the word "liberation" might be POV, it is used by a vast majority of historians. Hence, replacing it with something else will violate WP:NOR.

Because "retook" means it was not their territory before, which it was. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The word "liberation" is beyond any reasonable doubt POV, I refer you to the disscussion earlier and the example that I gave. Using a neutral word will not in any way violate NOR, the soviet were in control of Ukraine, then the nazis were in control of Ukraine, then the soviet retook it from the nazis all of this is well documented. The word "retook" does not make any judgment on the legitimacy of soviet rule. Observe " I took my coat and left.", "I took my sandwich and ate it.". --217.25.31.2 17:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a pure POV, it was not the Soviets but the Red Army, which consisted of people, who fought for their land and Ukrainian SSR was a Ukrainian republic which they fought for. --Kuban Cossack

17:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But its not Soviet POV, it the POV of the majority of the world. Official Ukraine including --Kuban Cossack

14:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Ukrainians talk about liberation of Ukraine by Soviet troops too. Only some guys in the Gallician appendix and a few others in Kiev don't. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please get an account and watch personal insults like 'troll'. Also remember that during the Second World War Ukrainian SSR, founding republic of the USSR, was the sole body that represented Ukrainians. --Kuban Cossack

13:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

it was not the Soviets but the Red Army, which consisted of people, who fought for their land and Ukrainian SSR was a Ukrainian republic which they fought for Hmmm...Last time I saw Białystok or Przemysl isn't in Ukraine or Belarussians. Nor are Ukrainians or Belarussians the largest group of people there... --Molobo 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't offtop, Are those cities in Ukraine or Belarus now? Yes Belastok and Peremyshl were seen as Soviet territory by Soviet Union only and were ceded to Poland on a ethnical and national border that the whole world recognised... --Kuban Cossack

20:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah then prior 1945 they couldn't be liberated as they weren't reckognised part of Soviet Union ? --Molobo 21:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

However this conversation is about the Dnieper, (which WAS recognised partof the Soviet Union) not the western Ukraine or Belarus. So don't offtop. --Kuban Cossack

21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said Kuban I just want to have a comperable situations in order for us to judge where the world liberation can and can't be used. --Molobo 23:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Habap and KK: AFAIR Irpen suggested at Talk:Lviv that we moved the discussion on the same topic from there to this talk page so that we didn't duplicate the chatter. So this discussion is relevant also to that one - and I find such a solution quite comfortable. Hence the case of Lwow is quite important here.

Deng, the population of Poland dropped by 6,000,000 people (from 35,000,000 in 1938) in the effect of the Nazi occupation. After the war, by 1946, it dropped by additional 5,000,000 in the effect of the Soviet annexation of roughly half of Poland. So, demographically speaking, both occupiers were comparable.

Grafikm, you claim that you're facing POV-pushers that won't even be satisfied with a NPOV version. Could you be so kind as to point me to some compromise NPOV solution from your side other than the one that suits your POV? //Halibu tt 00:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That shows the merit of your argument, Halibutt. The 5 mln "drop of population" in PL was not because 3 mln Polish Jews and another 3 million Polish Poles were exterminated (like was the case in a real occupation", but because of the border change in result of which population who were formerly Polish citizens (and very much discrimated ones, as was the case for the Ukrainian and Belarussian majority population of the territories belonging to the nationalist Polish state) became Polish citizens no more. No one tries here to justfy Stalin imprisonments and deportation but you can't even compare that in good faith to the Nazi extermination machine. That's as far as your newly invented twisted argument is conserned.

As for the compromise solution, it was proposed here many times. Liberation can be used along with other words accepted in the mainstream. No one is going to put it in every sentence, that would be poor even styllicstically. But no one can roam into the article written in agreement with wolrd-wide accepted terminology, that a good faith contributor took great pains to write, to purge a word article-wide claiming nonsensially that 'Soviet "occupation" was no better' or comparing the usage of the term applicable to Soviets liberating their own territory from the Genicidial invader with, what you dare calling "German liberation of Kiev from Bolshevism". With such clever arguments you and your friend here should step aside and let others who really care write articles without being disrupted by such nonsense. --Irpen 02:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deng asked specifically whether after the Soviets liberated Poland did the population contiune in the same pattern down or did it go up during the next 5 years?. I simply pointed to the fact that the population did went down. Fact.

As to the "compromise": there are people who support the term and those who oppose it. Your attempt at compromise is make those who oppose the term accept it, right? You might want to check the article on compromise to check what the term means. You might also want to check what other people proposed here before you repeat the occupation argument: nobody is proposing it. What we propose is some solution acceptable to both sides. BOTH SIDES. And perhaps you might want to read my own arguments posted here to check what is my proposal. Just a hint: no, I'm not proposing to change it to occupation either. I simply pointed out that that would be as extremist option as the one you currently defend. Wiki does not benefit from being someone's soapbox, be it nationalist Soviets, nationalist Poles, nationalist Ukrainians or Communist Martians. //Halibu tt 09:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki does not benefit from being someone's soapbox, be it nationalist Poles, nationalist Ukrainians. Oh, that's why there's a lot of nationalist Poles and Ukrainians doing their POV-pushing??? :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So, let it be clear: I'm ready to discuss NPOV with people truly advocating NPOV. Not with nationalists I see yelling about occupations, massacres and non-existing thousands of dead on other Wiki pages, conveniently forgetting about their own defaults. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see yelling about occupations, massacres and non-existing thousands of dead on In other words you are deciding to ignore historical facts like NKVD executions in Soviet controlled Poland, mass deportations by Soviets of population under Soviet controll, fake elections etc. I am afraid you have a very biased view on what happened in territories taken by Soviets. --Molobo 11:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC) http://www.projectinposterum.org/docs/chodakiewicz1.htm According to Janusz Borowiec, who studies the secret police in the Province of Rzeszów, the proof of the widespread application of torture can be gathered from the court records between 1946 and 1955. However infrequently, at least some of the bravest of the torture victims complained openly to judges about the treatment they had received from the UB men. Borowiec discovered no less than 31 individual and group instances of physical torture that varied from beating, electrocuting, and hanging by the genitals, to killing during the interrogation An example how Soviet "liberation" looked like. --Molobo 11:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Who said that Stalin's regime was perfect? But presenting him as the Devil is not NPOV... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

But presenting him as the Devil is not NPOV I don't see any sentence with the word Devil or Hell proposed(although I am sure millions mass murdered in places like Kolyma or Vorkuta could use such terminology to describe conditions). --Molobo 13:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Next step

All right, it seems this talk page would lead us nowhere. There are some people who find the liberation scheme POV and would like to change it and others who want the liberation to be kept at all cost. As apparently there is no compromise possible (as evidenced above), it's high time we tried some next step in the dispute resolution process. Any ideas what should be the best step? I thought of some ArbCom, but perhaps a simple tally would do? //Halibu tt 20:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tally? Here we go! Or you want a recount? Or a revote? --Irpen 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In case you hadn't read my post above, what I mean is a resolution of this mess, not a tally. //Halibu tt 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you confused me. You suggested that a tally might do as a way to resolve this mess, as you put it. At least that's how I read your previous post. I pointed out to you that the tally was already held. Nothing can prevent you from writing up the arbitration if you dislike the tally results and, also, disagree with the mainstream and consider Soviet stance in 43-45 comparable to Nazi stance in '41. While at it, you may want to try to propose the NOR policy modification so that we are allowed to give more credence to the fringe theories at the cost of the exclusion of the mainstream ones. That's all your right. --Irpen 23:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really belive using neutral wording can be in any way negotiated or voted upon. Even if its opponents could present some sort of argument against (other then that if they agree to NPOV some one will try to swing the POV the other way then) we have to assume this is written for some one who doesn't know the topic and wants to learn about it, not for each other. --217.25.31.2 06:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

disagree with the mainstream and consider Soviet stance in 43-45 comparable to Nazi stance in '41. While at it, you may want to try to propose the NOR policy modification so that we are allowed to give more credence to the fringe theories at the cost of the exclusion of the mainstream ones Is the view that Soviet behavior is comperable to behaviour made by Nazi's the fringe theory in Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine after their regained freedom from Soviets ? Meaning those countries that experienced it the most ? --Molobo 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a skillful political game of theirs. When a country gains independence, the new government usually loads the responsability for all the previous failures on their "foes" - never on themselves. You got it just about everywhere in URSS - including Russia. You got the same thing in former colonial countries. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a skillful political game of theirs. Of historians in those countries ? They are part of some conspiracy ? the new government usually loads the responsability for all the previous failures on their "foes" I don't recall that historians have formed government in Poland after 1989. I don't know about other countries. Last time I saw research wasn't controlled by the Party after 1989. Do you have any serious sources claiming that historians controll Polish government and falsify history as part of their fight against unspecified "foes" you mentioned ? For example that deportations to Siberia, Kazakhstan, mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Poles by Soviets, exploitation of Poland by SU, NKVD manhunts, torture in prisons never happened and is all a plot by some "government" of historians ? I am sorry but your explanation doesn't sound serious to me. --Molobo 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

When I say "theirs", I'm talking about countries and politicians, not about historians. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 07:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

When I say "theirs", I'm talking about countries and politicians Well since 1989 we had several governments both left and right wing, history is written by historians rather then our government and there are many debates, and its rather the view that Soviets were "liberating" somebody that is on the extreme fringe.

--Molobo 10:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

we have to assume this is written for some one who doesn't know the topic and wants to learn about it, not for each other.

I'm all for writing something for some one who doesn't know the topic. But that does not mean this topic has to follow the games of a handful of nationalists... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 07:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Want to get rid of nationalists - start with yourself. Or stick to the topic, not to personal remarks. //Halibu tt 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read this remark made by a historian??? He says exactly the same thing I was repeating since the beginning. And if you read this, you will find that I'm all for compromises - when I'm not facing nationalistic POV-pushers... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Did the historian you cite offend other Wikipedians the way you do? Nope. //Halibu tt 01:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because I get tired of this. If you read the archive page, I tried to debate with AndriyK, we tried to debate, to convince him and so on but he just would not listen, which is not at all surprising given his past contribs that earned him a ban in the process. Then, Molobo (and you, to a lesser extent) gets into the middle of it and try to play white knight. Not only you get a share of it while you should not, but you prevent other, less radical people (like heqs, tufkaa or PatrickFisher) to find a suitable solution.

For instance, we were talking about mixing up "liberate", "take" and so on in order to create a mix of terms, as to not create any POV impression. But even that was not enough for them. What the heck I can do with that? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)