Talk:Battle of Daugavpils

"Decisive" Polish Victory
Beaumont, don't you think you should revert my inclusion of the Latvians, just like Halibutt had it originally. Why such unusual generosity? Happy New Year! Dr. Dan 15:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider WP:DICK. EOT. --Beaumont (@)  18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider it everytime I have interaction with the non-existent Cabal. Dr. Dan 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * lol. Despite some efforts I can not abstain from citing here MPOV (Megalomaniacal point of view):
 * The following symptoms have been observed in advanced cases:
 * Accusing others of forming a cabal or conspiring against you
 * (as this is going nowhere, this time I hope really EOT). --Beaumont (@)  22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely false
Dr. Dan, the statement you deleted as completely false was actually true and relevant as an answer to the natural question: "so why they did not collaborate further". (I gave a more direct reference.) Feel free to copyedit what seems unclear. However, please refrain from groundless claiming false. --Beaumont (@)  21:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Beuamont, number one, this is an article started by Halibutt about the "decisive" Polish victory at the Battle of Daugavpils (which I took the liberty of including the Latvians as "contributing" to, which none of you did), not Polish disputes with their neighbors over their "short-sighted" foreign policy. Thanks for including the "real" reason that Latvian-Polish relations had issues (namely territorial questions regarding the six counties). As for the truth, let alone it being appropriate in this article, what would Poland's actions visa vis Lithuania have to do with Latvia's relationship with Poland? Unless Latvia found Poland's agression against Lithuania to be incompatible with their own world view? Again the statement I deleted, has no basis for being in this article, nor is it the reason that Polish-Latvian collaboration did not expand. Another classic example of trying to stick it to the uninformed reader? Dr. Dan 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, the text looks clear to me - but feel free to expand it if you prefer more explanations. Briefly, in view of Polish-Lithuanian mutual hostility in the twenties, Latvia had to choose sides. So it did, as stated in the text. BTW, did you know that it was Lithuania who refused the transit of some Polish reinforcements requested by the Latvia's foreign affairs minister (not surprising in this époque)? Actually, the territorial question was minor one in this regard, as it was Poland who proposed and insisted on the alliance (to equilibrate Lithuania's impact in the region) and it was Poland who wished to include the six communes, still Latvian. So it was rather a Polish problem what offer to make, not a real dispute (no fighting), I'd say. So maybe you'll find a better formulation of this phrase in the mainspace. --Beaumont  (@)  23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. I think county refers to something like powiat in Polish, a much wider unit composed of a few communes (so e.g. six communes make a county) - but correct me if I'm wrong here.--Beaumont (@)  23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Focus Beaumont, focus! About powiat you're right! O.K.? But the article does not have to digress into something that doesn't serve Poland's reputation, nor has anything to do whatsoever about the Battle of Daugavpils. If you really want to open up this can of worms (and I don't), then you have to be detailed and specific as to why Latvia sympathized with Lithuania over Poland in its later foreign policy. Wake up, and understand that this article is neither the time nor place for that. The sentence should go! We can do an entire article on the foreign policies of the involved parties, in a different article. Doesn't that even make the least amount of sense to you? Dr. Dan 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Latvia sympathised with Poland between the wars all right. What makes you think otherwise ? --Lysytalk 00:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Duh? The sentence that I deleted created that impression (never thought otherwise), not to mention that it had nothing to do with the subject of the article. Wake up! Dr. Dan 02:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, the article is the right time and place for a short answer to a natural question, as pointed out above. --Beaumont (@)  12:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)