Talk:London Victory Celebrations of 1946/Archive 3

Why does analysis come before a statement of what happened
Why does this article have analysis of what happened before a statement of what happened? Is there any reason that the current form should be kept? Normally we write about what happened and then have extended analysis of what happened. Varsovian (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that nobody had offered any explanation as to why this order should be contained in the article, if nobody explains in the next few days why it should be so, I'll re-order the section so that analysis comes after dry description of facts. Varsovian (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

'Proposed' extended lede
Rather than adding the multiple tags which are needed and then be accused of not keeping to WP:POINT, I’ve moved the text which another brand new editor proposes we put into the lede to this page, added the citation needed tags and the explanations for them. Perhaps we could discuss the controversial changes which the new editor wishes to make before they are made?

The parade is also notable for the exclusion  of all  Polish servicemen; hundreds thousands of whom served in the Polish Armed Forces in the West as one  of the largest Allied contingents. The 303 squadron was the only Polish unit invited ; it declined because the invitation was not extended to any other Polish unit, despite Poland being the fourth largest European ally during WW2. Poles were expected {{citation needed{{citation needed|please provide a reliable source which states that Poles did not attend that parade}} to attend the Moscow Victory Parade of 1945, and the Allies did not want to antagonize Stalin, whose Soviet Union claimed Poland under their sphere of influence. This is considered one of the causes of the feeling of "Western Betrayal" in Poland{{citation needed|please provide a reliable source which states that this is considered as such}}. {{Please note that this source specifically states that some Poles were invited and thus does not support the claim that all Poles were "excluded"}} {{Please note that this source specifically states that some Poles were invited and thus does not support the claim that all Poles were "excluded"}}


 * No, the lede is fine as it is ... or, was, until you removed sourced text from it with the false edit summary Removed inaccurate unsourced PoV from lede; there's very obviously 3 sources there, one of which you were just recently arguing (and making false statements) about. As has been discussed before the "inaccurate" is just your own POV and OR. Please stop repeatedly violating Wikipedia policies like that. Please do not make false edit summaries.radek (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And just in case you're unaware, per MOS (oh wait, that's the policy you repeatedly keep quoting at others in other contexts), the lede usually does not get inline citations.radek (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps explain why it is a good idea to have a section in the lede which contradicts both the rest of the article and itself? The lede currently claims that all Poles were excluded ("the exclusion of all Polish servicemen") which contradicts both the body of the article (which clearly states that some Poles were invited and that some participated) and itself (it then goes on to state that some Poles were invited). Would you like us to reach consensus here before we make controversial changes or shall I just add the citation needed tags as outlined above? Varsovian (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you are making reverts with false edit summaries.radek (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could discuss the controversial changes which the new editor wishes to make before they are made? Yes. So why don't you follow your own advice, and discuss things here before making controversial edits with false edit summaries? It's really rich to remove a large chunk of sourced text from the lede, that many editors before thought belonged there, use a false edit summary while doing it, then demand that any further "change" be "discussed" with you afterwards. Return the article to previous status quo, then discuss.radek (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The status quo is the version without the addition to the lede which has all the problems which I have identified above. I note that you have not a word to say about any of those problems and instead focus exclusively on me personally. Could that be because you find it impossible to defend edits which are blatantly self-contradictory and contrary to the sourced info in the article? Perhaps you might attempt to discuss the edits and not the editors? As for your repeated claims that my edit summary was false: could you please be so kind as to point out a source which confirms that the parade is notable for Poles not participating? If you can not produce a source for this unsourced inaccurate PoV, kindly refrain from making your accusations. Varsovian (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you are making reverts with false edit summaries. The text you removed clearly had sources (three of them) in it yet you described your action as  Removed inaccurate unsourced PoV from lede. Once you get that out of the way, we can talk about the lede.radek (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another post from you and still no attempt at all to address any of the problems in the proposed addition to the lede. Instead you focus exclusively on me. How strange that the timestamp on your post suggests that your latest post was made before the one above in which I state precisely how I removed inaccurate unsourced PoV. But despite this very strange happening, this diff shows that your question was answered and you have simply completely ignored the answer to it. Now, let's try talking about the lede and why you want it to be self-contradictory and contradictory to the rest of the article. Varsovian (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you are making reverts with false edit summaries. You have not explained why you did this, merely once again asserted that the sourced text is unsourced. The question was not answered. I see no point in discussing anything with someone who makes false edit summaries and then refuses to acknowledge that obvious fact. There's 3 sources, there, no? If you made a mistake, that's fine, it happens - just restore the relevant sourced text and then we can discuss it.radek (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated above (and completely ignored by you), none of those sources state that the parade is notable for the reason claimed by the proposed lede. I note that yet again you have made absolutely no attempt at all to discuss the obvious problems in having a lede which is self-contradictory and contradictory to the rest of the article and again you instead focus on me and accuse me of lying, very WP:CIVIL. Your statement that you see no point discussing is most interesting given that you have made no attempt to discuss anything except me. Are you ever going to make any attempt at all to address the problems in the lede which you edited into the article? Varsovian (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * YOUR interpretation of sources is irrelevant. There were sources. You removed them. You used the word "unsourced" in your edit summary. Your edit summary was false (I don't know whether you were lying or not since I don't know whether this was intentional or a mistake. I'm AGFing above and assuming it was a mistake). I will be happy to discuss the lede with you, once you admit your, mistake, and restore the lede to what it was before you gutted it with a false edit summary.radek (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not my interpretation of sources: it is the very simple fact that not a single one of those sources says a single word that the parade is notable for the claimed reason. I note that yet again you make absolutely no attempt to discuss the problems with the text that you edited into the lede. But even that there is no way that you could possibly defend the introduction of material which is self-contradictory and contradictory to the rest of the article (and even to what you yourself have written on this page), it is obvious why you discuss only me. Varsovian (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You have yet to explain why you made a revert using a false edit summary. There were sources. You removed them. You used the edit summary Removed inaccurate unsourced PoV from lede which is clearly false. I think it is perfectly rational for me to assume that a discussion with a person who uses false edit summaries, and then refuses to acknowledge that obvious fact, is not going to be productive and will lead nowhere, just like this discussion right here. Restore the lead, we can discuss it then.radek (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If all you are going to do is to make personal attacks and refuse to even discuss the problems in the text you edited into the article (or why you inserted text which you know to be wrong), I'm going to have little option other than to report you to the relevant boards. Varsovian (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not made any personal attacks. Accusing others of making personal attacks when they have not done so can in fact itself be interpreted as a personal attack. I have indicated my willingness to discuss this with you once you restore the text you removed with a false edit summary. No I don't think the text is wrong except perhaps in a ultra-pedantic kind of way (but then, it's the lede); at worst the word "all" maybe should be removed. Please don't make threats as they are not conducive to a productive discussion.radek (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

with edit summary Please do not delete sourced statements. LOL. There's no source in the text in that diff. And at the same time you're admonishing others not to delete "sourced statements" (sic) which are actually unsourced, you yourself are deleting statements with three sources in them, while claiming they are unsourced. Seriously??? Are you trying to set some kind of record for false edit summaries here?radek (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated here, that was a good faith mistake. Kindly do not imply that I am a liar.


 * Alright so you made a mistake (same one twice). I have not called you or implied that you are liar. Please don't pretend that I did.radek (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for your repeated accusations that my edit summary was false, I said "inaccurate unsourced PoV":
 * inaccurate covers the claims that 'all Poles were excluded', ‘only 303 was invited’ and ‘the invitation was extended to no other unit’ and ‘the USSR claimed Poland as part of its sphere of influence;
 * unsourced are the claims about ‘the parade is notable’, ‘only 303 was invited’ (in fact the proposed version gives a source which says no Poles were invited!), “the fourth largest European ally during WW2” and the bit about western betrayal;
 * PoV would be the the claims about ‘the parade is notable’ and the bit about western betrayal
 * Given that I have now explained in detail why my edit summary was appropriate and accurate, will you now:
 * a) kindly engage in discussion as to why you propose a version with such glaring problems such as it being self-contradictory and contrary to the sourced info in the article;
 * b)refrain from your constant accusations that I use false edit summaries, I do not appreciate being called a liar, especially not by you. Varsovian (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The text you removed had three sources. You stated it was unsourced. If you had problems with the word 'notable' then that was the word to... not remove, but bring up for discussion on talk page. I am curious though how you know that those claims are unsourced - have you read the entire (not just the prologue) Cloud and Olson source?
 * I did not call you a liar. Don't pretend that I did. Don't accuse me of having called you a liar.radek (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade source
''You are entirely right: there is no source given for that statement. Apologies for my mistake. The source is of course Hansard (and written answers have been discussed at WP:RSN, would you like a link to that?). A link to the source is available on the discussion page for the article. As I'm currently posting from my iPhone, I won't add the source now but will instead do so tomorrow. It's a pity that the available verifiable historical record doesn't support the claim the article currently makes, i.e. that 30% of the pilots is "a few". But sometimes historical record doesn't support the assertions made by secondary sources. Varsovian (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)''

-Chumchum7 (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, on this, if primary sources contradict (reliable) secondary sources (which I don't think they do in this case) then we go with secondary sources, that's a no brainer. There's no universal absolute rule that says that primary sources contain only divinely inspired TRUTH in them. In fact, lots of primary sources contain all sorts of nonsense all the time (battles with "millions" of soldiers on each side have occurred quite frequently in history). In fact, an approach to historical research which takes primary sources at face value would be naive indeed. That's why it's the job of the professional historian (NOT the job of Wikipedians, professional or not) to interpret primary sources, cross check them with other primary sources, and analyze them in a proper context. Then take all that analysis, write it down, filter it and publish it in a secondary source. And we may use that. If nothing else it saves us all from the hubris that we are all professional historians here.radek (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This particular primary source is confirmed by none other than General Anders, the man to whom (according to Norman Davies) an invite was sent. Given that our three sources here are two which agree with each other (Hansard and the memoirs of General Anders) and a pair of authors who don't even get right the date on which Britain declared war on Germany (as shown here they think clearly state it was 1 September), I would very much submit that NPoV requires that we give both versions of events: the one which says "a few" and the other which says that 25 of the 145 Polish pilots who took part in the BoB were invited (although we can't say "of the 145" because the sources do not include that number). That is of course if we are actually interested in maintaining NPoV.... Varsovian (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation of what two acclaimed authors, Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud, "think" is irrelevant (maybe you should write them an email and ax'em directly?) Of course we should strive for NPOV. And the way to ensure that is to rely on reliable secondary sources not our own original research based on primary sources.radek (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From the link provided above "Sept. 1 – Germany invades Poland. Britain and France declare war on Germany to begin World War II." so it is actually what they explicitly state. As for my own research, I didn't write Hansard and I didn't write the memoirs of General Anders: I just read them. Perhaps you should too. Varsovian (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, explicitly stating would be "Sept. 1 - Britain and France declare war on Germany...". There's a little "dot" there, before the next sentence. I'm not sure why this is so important to you or what it's supposed to prove, but seriously, if you really are concerned that Olson and Cloud "think" that, you should really email them and ask them for a clarification.radek (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's great that you've read Hansard and Anders' memoirs. It's even great that you are willing to engage in original research and interpret these primary sources. It's not that great that you're doing it on Wikipedia, as that's against Wikipedia policy.radek (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't recall ever making the claim that I have not read either Hansard or Anders' memoirs or both. Can you show me where I state this? So while I take your suggestion that I read these primary sources in good faith, perhaps you shouldn't make unfounded assumptions about other editors like that.radek (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And is this the Davies source in which, according to you, Davies states that an invite was sent to Anders?radek (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. As been pointed out numerous times but utterly ignored, that article is about "Britain's 1945 victory parade". Some editors think that Davies is writing about the 1946 parade but that is clearly their own OR. Varsovian (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. So where does Davies state that Anders was invited?radek (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh. And let me quote here another editor that has commented on your edits: Deleted nitpicking aside - source is clearly discussing the 1946 parade .radek (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources which state that when Davies was writing "Britain's 1945 parade" he was actually writing about the London Victory parade of 1946? Or is this insistence that the source means what you want it to say just a manifestation of OR? Varsovian (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"The parade is also notable "
On this one, it'd probably be best to ask for a third opinion. There's no reliable secondary source which uses the word "notable" explicitly. Yet, the exclusion of Polish troops (in one form or another) is discussed in pretty much every source which treats the parade with anything more than cursory passing.radek (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "There's no reliable secondary source which uses the word "notable", so you want WP to become the first source in history to describe this event as 'notable'. Please read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:RS. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The full statement would be "The parade is also notable for the exclusion of Polish servicemen; hundreds thousands of whom served in the Polish Armed Forces in the West as one of the largest Allied contingents.".
 * The inclusion of these weasel words shows the absence of merit in this ‘proposal’. “Exlcusion” means ‘prevent from entering’ or ‘keep out’. Not a single source says anything about how Poles were prevented from entering, no source has anything to say about any Poles even attempting to enter the parade! Why does Radeksz want to avoid saying “not invited”? “hundreds thousands”, how many hundreds? Two. Why doesn’t Radeksz want to use the real number? Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that I omitted the 'all' in the interest of compromise (since apparently some individuals of Polish ethnicity who had technically served within British units marched - not sure how that makes them "Polish servicemen" but nm). Note that there's also no claim to the Polish Armed Forces in the West being 4th or 5th largest or whatever.
 * Both primary and secondary sources state that Poles took part in the parade. But Radeksz clearly doesn’t worry about what sources actually say. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the secondary sources about the parade which discuss this topic which are already in the article:
 * Rudolf Falkowski
 * A source which specifically states that both eastern and western command Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * PBS Documentary "Behind Closed Doors"
 * A website which is not “about the parade” (despite Radeksz claim that it is) and has a grand total of three sentences about the parade. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Times Higher Education
 * A book review which is not “about the parade” (despite Radeksz claim that it is) and has a grand total of one sentence about the parade. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Olson and Cloud "A Question of Honor", book,
 * A book which is about 303 Squadron (i.e. not “about the parade”, deja vu). Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Olson and Cloud "For Your Freedom and Ours", book
 * Precisely the same book as above but with the British title. Still not about the parade. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Financial Times article (no free access - so correct me if I'm wrong)
 * As the free access here shows, this article is also not about the 1946 parade. It also makes a claim which even Radeksz has agreed is incorrect. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Laurence Rees "World War II Behind Closed Doors"
 * Yet another source which is (as the title shows) not “about the parade”. Still more deja vu. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Guardian
 * A source which is not “about the parade” and doesn’t even mention the parade of 1946. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Norman Davies, "Rising '44", book
 * Just look at the title: is it “about the parade”? Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't falsely misrepresent what I said (the way you misrepresent sources and use false edit summaries). I said, quote: every source which treats the parade with anything more than cursory passing.radek (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional secondary sources not yet in the article which also discuss the Polish topic within the context of the parade:
 * Peter Stachura, "The Poles in Britain, 1940-2000: from betrayal to assimilation",
 * Michael Alfred Peszke, "Poland's Navy" (obviously)
 * Anthony James Joes, "Urban guerilla warfare"
 * Michael Hope, "Polish deportees in the Soviet Union: origins of post-war settlement in Great Britain"

and undoubtedly many others. Frankly I'm a bit of tired of searching just to prove an obvious fact that the "Polish issue" was notable.
 * Was the lack of invitation to two hundred thousand Polish soldiers and sailors more notable than the lack of invitation to tens of millions of American, Chinese and Russian soldiers and sailors? And more to the point: do you have any sources regarding that? Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the reference section of the article is filled with various primary source - newspapers and media of the time, government statements - which show that the "Polish issue" was controversial at the time it occurred and hence "notable".
 * Interesting: you oppose the use of primary sources when they don’t support your point of view but you’re happy to use them at other times. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, try to follow this. Using Primary Sources to establish that something is notable is ok by Wikipedia rules. Using Primary Sources in a haphazard way to push POV in an article is not ok by Wikipedia rules. Establishing that something is notable is a different activity than using primary sources in a haphazard way to push POV in an article. One activity is ok. The other is not. According to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See the difference now?radek (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So I think that saying that the parade was "notable" for this particular issue in the lead or the text of the article is fine, per WP:COMMON, though of course I would also welcome any suggestion at alternative phrasings of the relevant statement.radek (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Third opinion: Just for clarification, why is the current Political controversy section not sufficient? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Essentially because the lede is supposed to summarize the contents of the article body: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should ... summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." . So in fact, the sentence above belongs in the lede precisely because there is a "Political controversy" section. The request for 3O though is more about the word "notable" in that sentence.radek (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pity that you have not even a single source which says that the parade is notable for that reason. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Notable' in the lede depends on what it is notable for. e.g. 'for complete absence of people from Poland' would be technically inaccurate, but 'for political controversy about treatment of Polish troops' would be accurate - with both Winston Churchill plus the chief of the RAF getting publicly hot and bothered about it at the time is a significantly covered political controversy documented by multiple secondary sources. My first thought is that a couple of well-written sentences in the lede at most should suffice to introduce this, as per WP:LEAD which says "summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". The controversy needn't dominate the lede. Either way WP:CONSENSUS is the decider. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting but the simple fact is that we have not a single source which states that the parade is notable because of the lack of Polish participation. Winston Churchill was the leader of the opposition when speaking so his allegations regarding Polish participation (which were specifically denied by HMG at the time) are purely PPOV. The coverage of the views of the chief of the RAF state "he insisted, against Soviet objections, that Polish aircrew be allowed to march, in uniform, in the Victory parade in London." (emphasis added). I've just read the lede of the article on the Holocaust and can't see even a word about holocaust denial in that, is it not an notable controversy? Or is it just that to the two sentences in this lede we should add " a couple of well-written sentences" about a couple of hundred thousand Poles (of whom 89,300 had formerly been in the German armed forces and so might not have been well received by the crowds) and tens of millions of Americans, Russians and Chinese not being invited? Varsovian (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what's going on here. The problem is in saying "The parade is notable for its exclusion..." To put text like that in the article is at the very least awkward, and at the most inappropriate. It's clear from the text in the article that the exclusion of the Polish forces caused controversy; stating that it's notable for that isn't necessarily true. I think it's a violation of WP:SYN to say, "Well, all these sources mention how the parade excluded these people, so it must be notable for that". Normally you see people claiming notability in Wiki articles where the notability of the subject is in question, and the article might be deleted. I don't see that happening here; it's pretty clear that this article isn't going anywhere. I think the text that Chumchum added (and I just cleaned up a bit) suffices and fulfills WP:LEAD. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help on this matter. However, Polish troops were not treated in any way at all in the parade (just as American troops were not). The controversy was not about the exclusion of any forces (nobody was excluded), it was about which Polish service personnel should be invited. All the sources agree that some Poles were invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Chumchum's additions as well and I don't see a need to insist on the word "notable". I do think that the lede should summarize the contents of the article and that such information should not be arbitrarily removed. However, you can already see from Varsovian's comment above why this is going to continue to be a problem - he insists on fighting over every single word and formulation. Having lost his attempt to try to keep the mentioning of the Poles from the lede he has already begun an argument on whether "treatment" is the appropriate word. This is, and has been for a long time, a clear violation of WP:TE (in addition to pretty much every other content related policy, and some of the behavioral ones as well). Frankly this kind of behavior just wastes everybody's time.radek (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

McNeil quote
I've moved the McNeil quote to Wikiquote here where it properly belongs rather than in a Wikipedia article where long quotes are generally discouraged (leaving aside the fact of how the quote is used) (and the fact that it was mis-formatted and may be full of spelling errors. I assume the month that begins with "Deb" is December.)radek (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 1R/week article level restriction (WP:DIGWUREN)
Some weeks ago, I took note of the problems caused by disputes about this article as a result of a message on my talk page. Because the dispute has not abated and seems to have been going on for a long time, I've imposed the restriction seen in the edit notice, Template:Editnotices/Page/London Victory Parade of 1946, and at the top of this talk page. I hope that this will help editors to settle their differences on the talk page rather than through slow-motion edit warring. For the sake of clarity, the revert counter starts at zero for all editors as of the time the restriction was imposed.  Sandstein  18:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, thank you. I had hoped that the previous restriction you placed me under would fix this problem but, as numerous mythical heroes before you have discovered, new heads on monsters grow very quickly. Anyway I'm off to look at the bog and swamps of eastern Poland. (Pity that what I see of Aktion Reinhard sites would be OR.) Seems like a good time for a wikibreak. Varsovian (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Data on Polish airmen in Battle of Britain
If our sentence "A total of 71 Polish fighter pilots flew in No. 302 (City of Poznan) Squadron and No. 303 ("Kościuszko") Squadron during the battle of Britain" is meant to indicate Polish contribution to the BoB, it should be improved to the more accurate ''"A total of 145 Polish airmen served in the RAF during the Battle of Britain, the largest non-British contribution.

Anyway either version of the sentence verges on WP:SYNTH as its not directly connected by the source to the Parade, so we should also consider cutting it completely. Tks -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have no problem with the total number being included. It is relevant, given that the invitation was extended only to Poles who took part in the BoB. Given that we still include Olson & Cloud's weasel words about "a few", the fact that 25 of the 145 Polish pilots were invited (as confirmed by primary and secondary sources) is needed to maintain NPoV. Readers will be able to see that 25 from 145 is neither "a few" nor nominal. Varsovian (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended lede
Why has that text again been inserted into the text? It is little more than inaccurate PoV nonsense! "the exclusion of all Polish servicemen" is simply a lie. 303 squadron was not the only Polish unit invited (as confirmed by numerous sources). It did not decline its invitation (as no such invitation was ever issued). Poles were not "expected to attend the Moscow Victory Parade of 1945", they attended it; and there is no source which links such attendance with the invitation given to the London parade. "the Allies did not want to antagonize Stalin" this was very clearly denied at the time by the British government. "This is considered one of the causes of the feeling of "Western Betrayal" in Poland." Considered so by who? Varsovian (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Polish 'controversy' is perhaps WP:UNDUE
The article states that the parade was mainly a Commonwealth affair, the bulk of the article is made up of the Polish 'controversy'. After cursory glances of available sources, it would appear to me that within the overall scheme of things with the sources available, the Polish 'controversy' is WP:UNDUE in the current state of the article. Take for example the Australian contingent - which was previously located under controversies, and which I have moved, sources provide much information which should be included. These comments do not equate to myself saying that the Polish 'controversy' is not notable, because it is somewhat, it is simply my observation that the length it takes in the article is somewhat WP:UNDUE once all sources taken into account.

The article also states "The absence[17][18][19][20][21] of the 228,000 Polish Armed Forces in the West who had served under British High Command has proven controversial." - I have marked this as being dubious, because the sources don't state any such thing. For 228,000 Polish personnel to be present, this would make them the largest contingent from any nation in the parade. As it is written, it isn't verified, and it is a dubious statement. It needs better wording to reflect what the author is actually saying. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the dubious problem by rewording the relevant statement to state what I think was initially intended by whomever added it to the article. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the section could be cut by at very least one-third, starting with the last couple of paragraphs. That said, the subject of the section is well covered by more than 3 secondary sources; and it was addressed by Winston Churchill and other notables at the time, so a reasonably large section is merited. Several editors supported 'political controversy' as an appropriate title for the subheading. A note of caution: the large size of the section has been caused by long-running disputes (and DIGWUREN sanctions) around this article and I don't expect any quick fix to stand the test of time. Arbitration is now being discussed on Sandstein's talk page. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Cut the last couple of paragraphs? You mean the ones which state that Poles did take part in the parade? I personally am beginning to reach the conclusion that this article is simply beyond saving: some editors (please not that I do not include you in that group) are simply unwilling to let the article fails to state that all Poles were excluded from the parade by a mean and nasty Britain. It might be best to just let them edit lies into the article as they see fit and drive another nail into the coffin of Wikipedia. Varsovian (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For a couple of months there was what appeared to be a reasonable concensus about this article. The concensus appeared to be that (1) the controversy about Polish troops not being present at the parade merited mention in the lead; (2) the controversy merited a separate section of the article covering it; but (3) the controversy is not the main subject of the article and therefore should not dominate the article nor the lead.


 * An IP user then made this edit with the effect of making the controversy (and one analysis of the reasons for it) dominate the lead. I reverted this, giving an explanation as to why in my edit summary. A second IP user (using an IP address that a lookup service describes as "Proxy: Suspected network sharing device") then reverted my edit to re-insert the change, without providing an edit summary. I am about to change that back, and I would like to suggest that the individual or individuals who would like to make these changes, should discuss them here, rather than just reverting back and forth without even providing any explanation as to their reasoning.
 * --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement article level ban (WP:DIGWUREN)
Since the edit warring has now resumed with IPs, presumably in order to evade the above ban, I have indefinitely semiprotected the page.  Sandstein  06:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the above restriction has now been lifted, as per a recent thread on WP:AE. Editors are encouraged to edit the article freely but with proper caution. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Note about rewriting
As most of the people involved in the longstanding dispute have now been excluded from here, I have felt free, as an outsider, to do a bit of rewriting and, especially, shortening of the "Polish" passage. I've done my best to get stuff correct and neutrally worded. If I have gotten something factually wrong, or omitted some particularly important source or something of that sort, people should feel free to inform me on my talk page (I don't think that'll be against Sandstein's topic ban). I hope you'll understand that this is not an invitation to continue fights about POV, appropriate weight or presentation, but please only about details of fact. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your contribution. I've never been sanctioned and I am equally free to edit here, though I'm semi-retired by choice. It would be wrong to assume the disagreements on this article have been all about two sides of a content war. There have been, in fact, several shades of grey. The problems have been caused by a failure by editors to work to WP:CONSENSUS, a disregard for WP:OWN, WP:AAGF and a disregard for (or misunderstanding of) WP:OR. The most problematic element was the obsessive POV trolling, which is an extremely difficult issue for the collegial WP process to deal with (starting with the paradox that one must not feed trolls, but one must confer). Almost all stages of WP:DR were tried and tested before we got to this point. Now, with much respect FPAS, there are good faith factual mistakes in your work here, which I could correct using citations. But I would like you to explain how you are going to work at consensus fairly on this article while you wield sanctioning power. To my mind, admins have the role of guidance and law enforcement; for reasons of professionalism comparable to the real world, they are at their best when they don't interfere in the ordinary, law-abiding progress of everyday life. You'll appreciate that one could be reluctant to join a party in which one man is carrying a gun, even if he is the nicest and wisest man in town. Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Obviously, now that I've become involved here as an editor, I won't be doing admin/enforcement stuff on any further conflicts related to this article. As for factual corrections, I obviously welcome them. Varsovian has proposed a few too, on my talk page. Anybody who's not been sanctioned is free to edit, and I'll just be a normal part of the editorial discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Further to your note I understand that for the purposes of this article alone you have declared yourself a regular editor without any admin/enforcement authority. Happy editing, and thanks again. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved through silent consensus.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 12:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

London victory parade of 1946 → — Change name to official name of event Bobanni (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Force archiving
Don't copy the CB3/AT template to the archives. Pldx1 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2016

FORCE ARCHIVING through CB3/AT 15:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)