Talk:Henryk Sucharski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Henryk Sucharski appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 17 February 2006. |
 |
[edit] Invasion/Liberation
I would kindly ask Sciurinæ and Ghirlandajo to take their crusade against Molobo elsewhere. This article was not written by him nor is it eligible to be held as some sort of a prisoner of some war against some user. If you want to promote some word usage in some other articles (as suggested by Sciurinæ's recent edit summary), try to do it in that article's talk page and not here.
Just in case you wondered, the changes by Ghirlandajo are factually inaccurate and POV. The term liberation is POV in itself, especially when related to the Czechoslovak liberation of a Polish majority of Cieszyn Silesia. Let's stick to factually-accurate and morally-neutral terms. In case of the Polish-Lithuanian War it was by no means a Polish invasion of Lithuania, as it was Lithuania to invade Poland, got beaten and forced to retreat to their initial positions (which were not crossed by the Poles). Check the relevant article. Halibutt 17:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- It all started from this. When you say "invasion", I say "liberation". So look at who was the first to introduce POV phrasing here. Understood? --Ghirla | talk 07:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Invasion: is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.
- 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".
- Unless you can prove that the Czechoslovakian forces did not invade the area and instead the Polish inhabitants of the area did not have freedom during the Polish rule while they had it during the Czechoslovakian rule - please refrain from introducing such changes. Halibutt 10:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sucharski not worthy!
On the front page (at the moment), we have "Sucharski...was allowed to keep his sabre in captvity (sic)", and then in the first paragraph of the article, we have "he defended for seven days against overwhelming odds".
However, it is not until the second half of the article that it becomes clear the truth is very different and Sucharski was in fact totally lame! He may have been able to personally surrender his sabre, but he didn't hold it during captivity and he did not defend against overwhelming odds: he was too busy attempting to procure the surrender of fellow officers, suffering nervous breakdowns, and having his apparently more competent XO assume command! The sword thing was a gesture of respect towards the soldiers under his "command", and nothing to do with him personally.
/Rant and will make edits to deal with this issue. The people who know the sources and details please assist as necessary. 203.198.237.30 10:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
