Talk:May Coup (Poland)

Untitled
My apologies to the user I reverted. I looked at the "prevented a bloody civil war" edit in the wrong way. SMC 10:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Chjeno-Piast govenment ???
The term "Chjeno-Piast govenment" must be explained in English. Boeing720 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a reason why it's a blue link - so that people who want it explained can click it and learn for themselves. Volunteer Marek 22:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Re this. What exactly are the improvements that you wish to make to the article? This seems to be nothing but a carry over from the edit warring on the Pilsudski article, in particular an attempt to put the word "junta" in there. Other than that, it's a bunch of non-grammatical changes. Like changing "coup d'etat" to "coup d'etat, a sudden overthrow coup". Also, the military was actually split on this event (hence the fighting between the pro-coup and anti-coup forces). Volunteer Marek 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This article should mention the August Novelization though. Volunteer Marek 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The form was not very good. Example "the government of prime minister NN" repeated over and over again. I have not removed anything. And conc. changing "coup d'etat" to "coup d'etat, a sudden overthrow coup" helps others. I've never heard abot the term. But the blue link gave me that explination. However I was not interested in the term in general, just what it ment in this specific case... (in contrast to the f.i. "Free city of Danzig" - an issue that was forgotten. If the trade war is mentioned, then I feel the Danzig-question must be mentioned aswell, it was a problem during it's entire history as free city and surrounding areas. I couldn't possibly spell it Gdansk in this perticular case.) ...and by explaining the term I help readers, I think. This is English Wikipedia. Besides the meaning of blue links are to read more about the issue in question. Not to get translational help. But a "junta" is an english word. A term for those (a group of officers usually) who take power by force, and has generals (or Field Marshals) in office, official or "behind curtains". A typical example is Chile 1973. And by the old text, how Pilsudski thaught about everlasting changes of government ) weaken the nation, is - again "exactly" - as Hitler argued in germany. It seems to me that You are very hostile to all edits that isn't exactly what think. Very suspicious indeed.

And why are You so hostile towards me ? I have NOTHING to do with the eledged person, and I have through my 48 years so far met quite a lot of polish people, in very various circumstances. From school to one of my neighbours - Grazina. I've never have had any problem with anyone from Poland. (like I've stated before my IP changes, but only the last 6 digits, I belive. My internet deliverer is "Comhem", Sweden. However I concider myself living in Scania, not Sweden. After 1711 Scania has not been danish one day. But I don't get hostile towards Stockholmers that do not appriciate Scanian history. Best reguards 83.249.173.211 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC) I could not save, had to log out. But best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. What exactly are the changes that you wish to make to the article? Best I can tell there were four:
 * Changing "coup d'etat" to the ungrammatical and weird "coup d'etat, a sudden overthrow coup"
 * Putting in "with support from Polish military" in there. This is not supported by sources or just basic knowledge of the event. The Polish military split during the coup, with some of the most prominent generals (Haller, Anders) fighting against the coup.
 * Putting in "This was though a matter of low importance, since the military support of Piłsudski once again made him to the true ruler of Poland". See the previous one. "This was though" is bad English anyway. By whom? It's unsourced and it's original research.
 * " After his death a military junta continued ruling Poland until the outbreak of the second world war. The most well-known member of this junta was Piłsudski's former foregin minister, Józef Beck." - unsourced and what looks like a continuation of edit warring from the Pilsudski article itself.
 * Volunteer Marek 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Pointless edit which seems to have no substance except to provoke an edit war:.

This isn't WikiDictionary. Volunteer Marek 00:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop assuming that I'm looking for editational wars. I've fixed an English translation for them who does not want to get too deep into the terminology, but still wonders.(whithin paratheses and remaining of blue link outside)

predecessor and successor. Do not understand the problem. I really think that You can make these articles very good, without them bending too far into declaring Pilsudski as a saint. And also without antpathy towards Germany (excluding the nazists) compare Pilsudski with the Winston Churchill article f.i., his mistakes (like Gallipoli -1915, general election -45 etc) are INCLUDED, yet he remains a british hero. Best of reguards Boeing720 (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The coup may have splitted the officers, but that does not make it less military. Do You suggest that the coup winners had no military support whatsoever ? You mention Yourself the military split. And the fact that military was involved when puttning a Field Marshal at "de facto leader" - Yes I think that is of historical help for the readers. And for the Wikipedia credibility.
 * That a military junta ruled Poland is well sourced. Aswell as Beck. Question of importance ? It's very common to mention attermaths. Take a look at the articles about the Pope and former popes (as an example) By a simple click You can reach both
 * I could ask the same about "Piłsudski's memory is held in high esteem by his compatriots" at Pilsudski article. But I don't (and not because the four given references). But if You are old enough to remember the communist era in Poland, (?) You would agree that the communsits treated Pilsudski as "not to speak of". This I fail to see what is wrong to mention ? (Since its true, just ask someone that remembers. I've got it from the Swedish encyklopedia "Nationalencyklopedin" digital version "NE2000" (updated until year 2000). NOT being a hero during the communists must be concidered a good thing in Poland, I assume. I've written about very various subjects, but very seldom gotten into any troubles. Only I can remember was this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hells_Angels_MC_criminal_allegations_and_incidents#Denmark an angy british biker was not peased with my original sourcing. - And the Wroclaw-article. I do not see Wikipedia as a combat zone of arguments. Just a search of truth. Now I've forgotten howI got into Pilsudski, and this coup. But the reference of the italian ambassador in a lead, like it was, got me into "investigating" further. And wrongful accusations there after. I've been stright with You Marek.

Removed part - just make it understandable, please
I had to (temperary) remove the following part (and I feel confident that You Marek soon will notice it) : "Apart from domestic turmoil, Polish politics had been shaken by a trade war with Germany, begun in June 1925, and by the signing of the Treaty of Locarno on October 16. Under the terms of the treaty, the World War I western European Allied powers and the new states of Central and Eastern Europe sought to secure a postwar territorial settlement in return for normalized relations with defeated Germany." "Apart from domestic turmoil, Polish politics had been shaken by a trade war with Germany, begun in June 1925,", so far understandable. But the following formulations is so dizzy that I cannot correct the form, due to too dizzy formulation. I do understand the words and even centances - but still not what is ment. Was the normalisation of eastern Europe a problem ? Specially the connection between the centance that ends with "... Treaty of Locarno on October 16." and then the following centance "Under the terms of the treaty..." Here is a gap - but I do not quite know how to fill it, maintaining correct historical facts. And its indeed very confusional to read both that "politicans were shaken by a trade war with Germany" - and (if I understand correct) that "normalisation in eastern Europe with Germany" also would be a problem. And by 1926 "defeated Germany" isn't proper to speak of 8 years after the war. "Germany" is enough. And if the trade-war is mentioned, reasons why should be presented (briefly). And during the between the wars era, The situation in the "Free city of Danzig" was a problem. That cannot be denied and fits well into the trade war period mentioned. I suspect that such matters for unknown reasons gets rejected just because of the spelling (Danzig, not Gdansk). I fail though to see what such things matters. Czecks doesn't mind "Praha" being spelled "Prag" or "Prague". Italians doesn't care that their "Roma" and "Napoli" is spelled "Rome" and "Naples", or "Cologne" insted of "Köln" in Germany or danes getting angry if "København" is spelled "Copenhagen", "Köpenhamn", "Kopenhagen", "Copenhague" etc. In any case it is not intentionally with bad back-thoughts "Danzig" must be spelled like that, when talking about the Free Stare 1920-1939. Please try to listen - and helpme with this part, Please. Boeing720 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with the removal of the second part of that sentence, since it's unclear what the Treaty of Locarno had to do with the coup. The general economic situation at the time of the coup - which included the tariff war with Germany - however IS relevant. However, we should have a source which explicitly links the tariff war with this event, otherwise it is a bit SYNTHesish. So yea, I got no problem with this particular edit. Volunteer Marek 02:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not affect the fact that I still have a good bit of trouble understanding the rest of your comment or how "Köpenhamn" has anything to do with it. Or Danzig for that matter. You're referencing some dispute on some other page from some time ago, which... again very strongly suggests that this isn't your primary account. But whatever. Volunteer Marek 02:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I've told You before. At Commons I had a signature "AviatorPontus" or "PontusAviator" long time ago. Did not upload any pictures for atleast a year. But IF You remember me, then that occurs from where I remember You. The article "Wroclaw".

But like I wrote above, the only person that has threttened me with actions was the british biker. (He didn't appriciate a source as a danish TV-documentary.) Lucky for me all murders that has taken place in Copenhagen has an extern very good english webb-site. I'm sorry if I assumed something wrong about names of Polish cities. I'm quite tired now. Sometime we might meet again, don't assume too much in advance then. Best reguards Boeing720 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on May Coup (Poland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://poland.pl/archives/interwar/article,,id,11624.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)