Talk:Warsaw Pact: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Easternbanner Europeshell|class=B|importancevital=yes|1=}}▼
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=Start}}
{{WikiProject Albania|class=StartSocialism |importance=High}}▼
{{On this day|date1=2004-03-31|oldid1=6718381|date2=2004-07-01|oldid2=4422190|date3=2005-07-01|oldid3=17954419|date4=2006-07-01|oldid4=61565308|date5=2007-07-01|oldid5=141292861|date6=2011-05-14|oldid6=429042145|date7=2012-05-14|oldid7=492389314}}▼
{{WikiProject Cold War|class=start|importance=top}}▼
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=startInternational relations |importance=highHigh}}
{{WikiProject Military history |B-Class-1=no<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-2=no<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-3=yes<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-4=yes<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-5=yes<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |Cold-War=yes |Romanian=yes |Polish-task-force=yes |Russian-task-force=yes}}
▲{{WikiProject Cold War|class=start|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject InternationalPolitics relations|class=start|importance=midHigh}}
{{WikiProject MilitaryPoland history|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=startAlbania |importance=midHigh}}▼
|class=Start
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe}}
<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
|B-Class-1=no
<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2=no
<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3=yes
<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4=yes
<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5=yes
|Cold-War=yes
|Romanian=yes
|Polish-task-force=yes
|Russian-task-force=yes
}}
▲{{WikiProject Politics|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Poland| class = Start| importance = high}}
▲{{WikiProject Albania|class=Start|importance=}}
▲{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|class=|importance=}}
}}
▲{{On this day|date1=2004-03-31|oldid1=6718381|date2=2004-07-01|oldid2=4422190|date3=2005-07-01|oldid3=17954419|date4=2006-07-01|oldid4=61565308|date5=2007-07-01|oldid5=141292861|date6=2011-05-14|oldid6=429042145|date7=2012-05-14|oldid7=492389314}}
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Arizona_state_University/HST_101_World_History_Since_1500_-_Spring_18_(Spring_A_2018)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:ASU557|ASU557]].
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 12:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Yugoslavia in Warsaw Pact? No way, never happened! ==
Line 73 ⟶ 60:
I would like to see a better image, because in it's current state it's almost useless. [[User:SovietCanuck|SovietCanuck]] 21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, allegedly WP never had an official emblem. The one in the article is said to be from a video game made in the 2000s. I think we need to remove the emblem from the article until it is backed up with a credible source. [[User:Erri Oldharwe|Erri Oldharwe]] ([[User talk:Erri Oldharwe|talk]]) 06:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
::This (https://geraldika.ru/s/1302) site claims that the symbol w
::which the emblem in the article is based was a chest badge introduced in 1969, which is «often mistaken for the common emblem of the entire organization». So I'm removing the emblem for wikipedia shouldn't be a vehicle of disinformation. of [[User:Erri Oldharwe|Erri Oldharwe]] ([[User talk:Erri Oldharwe|talk]]) 06:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
== Russia ==
Line 105 ⟶ 96:
:: There has been a conference of Warsaw treaty memer countries delegates in Moscow on that day, but I do not have any closer information about it... <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/147.213.138.3|147.213.138.3]] ([[User talk:147.213.138.3|talk]]) 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::: There seems to be conflicting information on this page concerning exactly when the pact came to an end. I've seen dates ranging from March to December of 1991. Will check for more reliable information. [[User:ASU557|ASU557]] ([[User talk:ASU557|talk]]) 06:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)ASU557
== More expert insight on this topic needed ==
Line 358 ⟶ 351:
==Emblem shows incorrect flags==
The otherwise accurate emblem displayed in the infobox displays the incorrect post-communist flags of Bulgaria, (East) Germany, and Romania, as these flags are missing their Soviet-era emblems. (It should also use a typeface other than Arial, which only became popular after the release of Windows 3 in 1990.) As I have no talent editing svg graphics, I would urge someone who can do this to please fix this. [[User:ProhibitOnions|<span style="color:#800">Pro<span style="color:#a00">hib<span style="color:#b00">it'''<span style="color:#c00">O</span>ni'''</span>'''o'''</span>'''ns'''</span>]] <sup><fontspan sizestyle="font-2size:x-small;">[[User talk:ProhibitOnions|(T)]]</fontspan></sup> 14:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
== Removal of content ==
re: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=575939578&oldid=575929411]. I agree with the tiny edit shortening strategy, but I am not sure if the larger removal that follows is indeed helpful. @[[User:Esetzeko]] - could you explain it more? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<fontspan style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</fontspan>]]</sub> 05:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm removing the POV tag as there is no discussion in the talk page (see here: [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#Adding a tag to a page]]). As usual some user is looking for the most blatant excuses to delete parts of articles that do not meet their personal point of view. -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Line 378 ⟶ 371:
== POV in the beginnings section ==
This whole section is completely non-neutral. It attempts to portray the formation of the pact as a response to Germany joining NATO. With sources being misrepresented and a good amount of original research thrown in. Yes, Germany joining NATO was the official excuse. But this claim is not treated seriously by historians. The fact that sources always qualify this reasoning ("ostensibly" - "perhaps but not actually") shows this. Basically, this whole section just parrots the Stalinist propaganda of the time and takes it at face value. Hence the tag.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 20:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
: [[History (TV channel)|History channel]] itself portrays the Warsaw pact as a response to West Germany joining NATO:
:'''"The formation of the Warsaw Pact''' ''was in some ways a response to the creation of NATO, although it did not occur until six years after the Western alliance came into being.'' '''It was more directly inspired by the rearming of West Germany and its admission into NATO in 1955.''' ''In the aftermath of World War I and World War II, Soviet leaders felt very apprehensive about Germany once again becoming a military power–a concern that was shared by many European nations on both sides of the Cold War divide."''[http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/formation-of-nato-and-warsaw-pact] and ''"the decision by the United States and the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on May 9, 1955 to make'' '''West Germany a member of NATO''' ''and allow that nation to remilitarize.'' '''The Soviets obviously saw this as a direct threat and responded with the Warsaw Pact."''' [http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-warsaw-pact-is-formed]
Line 384 ⟶ 377:
:I will assume good faith in your behalf, even if it it seems more you reverted just cause [[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT|you don't like it]]. However, it is good you asked for more sources in the section. -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 15:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::Actually, no, the History Channel is not regarded as a reliable source, on Wikipedia or elsewhere (otherwise we'd have to treat theories about aliens building the pyramids seriously). And anyway, the text wasn't sourced to the History channel, and this doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented other sources - the example where you cannily omitted the word "ostensibly" (which means "perhaps, but probably not") from a sentence.
::You know, this kind of misrepresentation of sources on this topic [[User:Jacob Peters|looks quite familiar]].<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 20:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::{{u|Volunteer Marek}} Please state where on wikipedia, and provide links accordingly, about History channel being not a reliable source otherwise your statement is of no help. -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 12:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:::"Stalinist propaganda"? Hardly, especially since Stalin was dead at this point. There are plenty of reliable sources that clearly write that Warsaw Pact was reaction to admission of West Germany into NATO. I can't say for Canadian, US or other western universities, but when I studied in Poland well past 89, even our university books about this aspect of history and international relations described this in cold analysis. Of course I am sure there are engaged historians both pro-Western and pro-Soviet who engage in more politicized description of events, but the mainstream historians interested in realistic description just offer realpolitik analysis.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 21:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::::Stalin might have been dead but Stalinism wasn't. And of course you're welcome to present these sources (preferably here). But right now what we have in the article is a gross misrepresentation of sources which don't say what the above editor is pretending they say.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 21:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::"Stalin might have been dead but Stalinism wasn't." If you believe university books in Poland written after 89 were created with Stalinist propaganda in mind please present sources stating so. I would be interested in seeing them(if that is what you are claiming/saying)--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 22:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::There's no problem with university books written in Poland after 89. There is a problem with the text in this article which is NOT based on such books or which misrepresents its sources. Stop pretending this is something which it isn't.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 23:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Volunteer Marek}} The more you go ahead with your replies the more people can see how highly politiced and non-neutral your intentions are, meaning you are just pushing your personal point of view and beliefs without really checking the sources you cite inappropriately.
:::::* 1) You point out that History channel [http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/formation-of-nato-and-warsaw-pact][http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-warsaw-pact-is-formed] is not reliable, fine, maybe not in all the fields treated by them, but in this particular case they are backed by various secondary academical and scholarly sources. In reality, there is indeed a general consensus about '''why''' Warsaw Pact was put in place in first place. However if you don't like History channel, here is a citation from the NATO website [http://www.nato.int/history/nato-history.html]:''''" In reaction to West Germany's NATO accession, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European client states formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955"'''' Is also NATO website "stalinist propaganda"?
Line 398 ⟶ 391:
::::::The state department source is also fine, but you are checking what you like out of it.
::::::I am not misrepresenting Crump's book. I am pointing out that someone else is. You haven't used it before. I can't comment on things which you haven't done yet.
::::::For the word "ostensibly" being used in the source, check the previous discussion and edit summaries.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 19:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Link the source please. Sorry but I am not inside your head and I have also a life out of wikipedia. Thanks -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 14:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Line 405 ⟶ 398:
Re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696395903]. If you want to add "scholarly sources" about something that's fine. But please don't restore text which blatantly misrepresents sources. For example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696395903 this source] says nothing about ''"USSR, fearing "the restoration of German Militarism" in West Germany"''. Whoever put that in (guess who) just made that shit up and then tacked on an inline citation at the end to make it look legitimate. Same with other parts of the texts you restored.
Now, maybe you added some useful info in, I don't know, I haven't checked. But if that's your intent, please do so without restoring compromised material. Since it's not my job to separate the wheat from the chaff in your edits - you have been around long enough to know how to do that yourself - I'm going to revert you, and I am asking you not to restore the misrepresentation of sources.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 21:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Volunteer Marek}} The more you go ahead with your replies the more people can see how highly politicized and non-neutral your intentions are, meaning you are just pushing your personal point of view and beliefs without really checking the sources you cite inappropriately.
:*USSR feared Restoration of West Germany militarism, it's an historical fact. Regarding this, check also the [[United States Department of State]] Office of The Historian [https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/warsaw-treaty] from which I cite:''"When the Federal Republic of Germany entered NATO in early May 1955,'' '''the Soviets feared the consequences of a strengthened NATO and a rearmed West Germany''' ''and hoped that the Warsaw Treaty Organization could both contain West Germany and negotiate with NATO as an equal partner."'' Is also the US state Department "stalinist propaganda"?
:As it is abundantly clear you are just pushing your personal point of view, I will advise you again to be more collaborative and not disruptive towards the other editors. Also remember that [[WP:3RR]] apply on this article as well.
:Warsaw Pact and USSR are subjects now that now belong solely to History and should be treated in that way, along a neutral [[WP:NPOV]] point of view, as most of the present scholar and academic research is doing, I advise you to keep in mind that. -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 11:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
::If it's a "historical fact" as you claim, then provide sources. And by that I mean provide sources which actually make this claim, not a random source (like [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fast-facts-about-nato-1.778864 this one]) which say absolutely nothing of the kind.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 19:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
== Come on, please stop playing games with sources ==
Line 426 ⟶ 419:
Third, it does say that "Polish and Czechoslovak (communist) party leaders" welcomed the guarantee of the borders the pact provided, but it also mentions that this was "to a lesser extent" - i.e. it wasn't a central part or purpose of the pact.
Please don't misrepresent sources. I'm getting tired of asking this.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 21:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
"The interests of the communist parties of these countries were obviously not the same as the interests of the countries"
Line 432 ⟶ 425:
In any case you didn't read the source in detail as it clearly writes about unreckognized borders and that fear of re-militarized Germany was major motivation.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 21:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:Take it up with the source which is the one that makes the distinction explicit whether you like it or not. You found the source. So at least use it legitimately, not abuse it.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::I think you are seeing more than there is, there are numerous quotes that say "Poland" instead of "Polish leadership" or "American leadership" instead of USA.In any case I added quotes.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 22:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Nope. The source is very careful on this. You are just misrepresenting it.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I am afraid source contradicts your claims. And quotes show there is no misrepresentation. --[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 22:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::::And I'm afraid you're making stuff up. Let's see those quotes. I provided quotes right above.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::"And I'm afraid you're making stuff up." Every quote is in the source."And I'm afraid you're making stuff up." They are already in the article.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 22:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but the quotes don't support the text you've inserted. And you still haven't explained where [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fast-facts-about-nato-1.778864 this source] talks about "Soviet Union fearing German militarism".<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 23:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::It might be because I didn't use this source you claim I did, but Indivisible Germany: Illusion or Reality ? by James H. Wolfe--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 21:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::No. You kept re-adding the CBC source and using it to "support" the claims of "German militarism" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696395903 here] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696397886 and here].<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 07:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::You didn't use the Wolfe source until later and for a completely different part of article.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 07:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Volunteer Marek}} Please stop creating new sections which does not report in the title any reference related to the topics found in the sources. It seems just that your main purpose is to create confusion in order to make not understand to newcomers neither the issue nor the sources' content. Because of this I have again to reply you with what I wrote above.
:*USSR feared Restoration of West Germany militarism, it's an historical fact. Regarding this, check also the [[United States Department of State]] Office of The Historian [https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/warsaw-treaty] from which I cite:'''"When the Federal Republic of Germany entered NATO in early May 1955, the Soviets feared the consequences of''' ''a strengthened NATO and'' '''a rearmed West Germany''' ''and hoped that the Warsaw Treaty Organization could both contain West Germany and negotiate with NATO as an equal partner."'' Is also the US state Department "stalinist propaganda"? -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 15:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:::You, and MyMolobo, added this source [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fast-facts-about-nato-1.778864] to cite the claim that the Warsaw Pact was initiated by the Soviet Union because "it feared German militarism". The source says no such thing. It says absolutely NOTHING about "German militarism". It says absolutely NOTHING about motivations behind the formation of the Warsaw Pact. In fact, it says almost nothing about Warsaw Pact itself. So... please explain why you added text and then cited it to a source which doesn't actually say anything at all about the text inserted? It's not a complicated question.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 19:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:''You, and MyMolobo, added this source [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fast-facts-about-nato-1.778864] to cite the claim that the Warsaw Pact was initiated by the Soviet Union'' The source I added is Indivisible Germany: Illusion or Reality? by James H. Wolfe, not the one in your link. And it does say about German militarism.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 21:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
::No. You kept re-adding the CBC source and using it to "support" the claims of "German militarism" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696395903 here] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696397886 and here]. Note that in the text being re-added the phrase "German militarism" is in quotation marks, which suggests to the reader that this is directly from the CBC source. In fact, as pointed out several times already, the source says NOTHING about "German militarism".
::Along the same lines in those edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696395903 here] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696397886 and here], you did NOT add the Wolfe source. You added the Wolfe source much later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696401935 here], in another part of the article and also failed to correct the misrepresentation of the CBC source.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 07:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
== Please stop misrepresenting sources AND using dishonest edit summaries ==
Line 457 ⟶ 450:
If not, please explain to us how, for starters (there's many additional problems) [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/fast-facts-about-nato-1.778864 this source] actually supports the text.
Please.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:{{u|Volunteer Marek}} Here is just another example of who is really misrepresenting the sources here. The edit you don't like states at the beginning:
Line 468 ⟶ 461:
::Can you point out where the cbc source states that the Warsaw Pact was formed because "Soviet Union feared German militarism"? That is the actual text under dispute.
::Second, even the quote from the source you provide does NOT support the text in the article. The CbC source merely mentions the sequence of events. You are the one establishing a casual connection between them and throwing in your own [[WP:OR|original research]].
::Third, your claim that "USSR really did not need WP" actually contradicts your other claim that WP was formed because "Soviet Union feared German militarism". Not actually surprising, since this is all [[WP:OR]], but nevermind that.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 19:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
And for funk's sake, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&diff=prev&oldid=696398546 this edit] is not ''"minor changes"'', as it is falsely claimed in the edit summary. It's an obvious and blatant POVing of the article. You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know not to misleadingly portray non-minor edits as minor since that's a quick way to get oneself blocked.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:I have added sources that confirm Solidarity was supported by third foreign party, USA, which at the time was adversary of Poland and its government on international stage. For more information please read [Covert United States foreign regime change actions] article section on Poland(perhaps it should be added as hyperlink).--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 22:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::You used an edit summary "minor changes". These weren't minor changes. Please don't use dishonest edit summaries.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::USA and CIA support for Solidarity movement is well known, and no big revelation. Personally I don't see adding that well known fact as major change to the article.However as USA was an adversary of Warsaw Pact and legitimate Polish government of Poland at the time,and engage in covert hostile action against WP second biggest member it is a notable fact.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 22:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::::You used an edit summary "minor changes". These weren't minor changes. Please don't use dishonest edit summaries.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::''These weren't minor changes''. Please explain? How is adding simple fact like that a major change.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 22:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::If you don't understand why that wasn't a minor change, then perhaps you should refrain from marking ANY of your edits as "minor changes" since that can easily mislead others.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 23:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
== Can the POV get more ridiculous? ==
Line 491 ⟶ 484:
And note that this isn't a change which is even claimed to be backed up by sources. It's just straight up, unsourced, blatantly biased, POV pushing.
And also note that the edit stupidly leaves the "against Hungary" and "against Czechoslovakia" in there, making the sentence not just completely ungrammatical and nonsensical, but also self-contradictory.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
:Please, really stop creating new sections: it's now this talk page that is getting more and more ridicoulous and more and more a complete mess. Is your main aim just to create a big non-sense confusion, only because the others' edits do not meet your personal point of view (POV)? I hope not. -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 15:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
::I'm sorry but there are so many problem with the article and with the recent edits that it makes sense to create separate sections for separate problems. Now, can you (or someone) address the actual issue? Why is the wording being changed to an obviously POV one?<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 19:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
:Your section titles did not report any issue related to actual content or events, they are only titles meant to attack personally MyMoloboaccount, and whoever reads your section titles does not understand at all to what you are referring to, neither is clear reading your comments. You have only managed to make a big confusion. Proof that your new sections are redundants is that you are writing all over again the same answer talking about the same CBC old source in order to push your POV and without taking in consideration the new sources brought to you (but neither the old ones).
Line 519 ⟶ 512:
:Kingsindian, yeah, that's good. I was going to suggest changing "at reforms" to "against reforms" to make it clearer but I see somebody already did that.
:Flushout1999, MMA was blanket-reverting all my changes and restoring misuse of sources and then pretending like they were not doing that. I did not personally attack them. I criticized their behavior. There's a very important difference.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 20:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
::I still think you have it done in the worst way possible, and I told you before that I have the Laurien Crump book (you can find it on the web) so I don't think he misused that particular source (I can cite you the paragraphs from pag. 21-22 if you want), I only see a problem of proper placing in the article. What you read in the book is that indeed Ulbricht (GDR) saw the Khrushchev’s proposal for the WP as a boost for GDR legitimacy, and Polish and Czechoslovak party leaders saw the WP as a way to secure their unrecognised borders with Germany.
::The main problem occuring here is that if you both don't make an effort to understand each other and you don't stop talking like if everything is self-evident (what is self-evident for MMA is not for you, and what is self-evident for you may be not for him) then shit happens. -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 19:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Line 525 ⟶ 518:
== first two paragraphs of the "beginnings" section... ==
...are atrocious. These try so hard to beat the reader over the head with their POV (NATO! German militarism!) that they repeat the same thing several times (else the poor reader might miss the POV!), are ungrammatical, there's no paragraph structure, the order of sentences is not cohesive, there's several punctuation errors, and they are basically unreadable.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 20:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
: The second paragraph, in particular, is too much based on a primary source (the memoirs of Molotov). One should use a reliable secondary source for interpretation instead. There are many other problems. I'll try to get to them when I get the time. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]] [[User Talk: Kingsindian|♝]] [[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|♚]] 21:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
::Yup.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 22:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Marek there is a reason why there was fear of West Germany remilitarization, it's because (ex?) nazis were again being employed inside West Germany, the Soviets presented this as their main concern in their request for admission in the NATO. I mean, if you think about what ment Nazism for the European Peoples (war, violence and death) you may understand why such argument was not baseless (that's why even the US Department write about german remilitarization using the word "fear"). So I don't see nothing wrong about that part you labeled as "off-topic" and I will try to re-insert it in a better way so that it does not sound off-topic, but now I don't have time for it. And of course I am totally open to discussion.
:::About the Berlin Conference part, indeed I have no other sources in my hand for the moment. I took the informations now in the article from the argumented chronology present in that book, and I think I have been able to report it in a neutral way (I basically took away all added comments aimed at presenting UK, France and USA in a bad light, stating only their refusal). In my opinion there is indeed a main lack (which could be seen as POV): It is not stated 'why' they said No to Molotov's proposals. I personally believe they had concerns about Soviet behavior in the future (like more government takeovers like the one occurred in Czechoslovakia 1948). And that's why I added sentence "neutralization means sovietization" from Adenauer, to give some balance (not sure at this point if it was understood). I think it would be cool if somebody can find some secondary source to write the Berlin conference part in a better way, stating also "western" concerns which lead to "no to German neutrality and re-unification". -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 18:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
::::{{u|Volunteer Marek}} Actually I think it's fine you took away the paragraph sourced with Wahl Alfred (the "off topic" one)[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw_Pact&type=revision&diff=697037702&oldid=697037579], as there is not a direct link with the Warsaw Pact topic. It's one of my oldest edits and I made a connection with the "Soviet Request to access nato" PDF content and this other wiki page I was reading at the time, then I edited. In any case this particular edit of yours is fine to me. -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
::::I also tried to make some order in the first paragraph. I think the informations there are valuable and well sourced. -- [[User:Flushout1999|Flushout1999]] ([[User talk:Flushout1999|talk]]) 20:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::Ok, thanks.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 16:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
*Oh yes, the intro should be fixed. It tells that Warsaw Pact "was a collective defense treaty", which sounds like something similar to NATO, i.e. a voluntarily treaty signed by several ''independent'' countries, when in fact that was a milirary organization of several [[Soviet satellite states]], which is something very different and should be said somewhere in the first or second phrase. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Line 541 ⟶ 534:
:The Hungarian security forces loyal to the government of Kadar participated, side by side with Soviet forces, in quelling the uprising. By saying "no other country participated" overlooks the internal nature of the conflict, and overlooks Hungary's own participation in the crackdown. [[User:CarlsonC|CarlsonC]] ([[User talk:CarlsonC|talk]]) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
:Yes, but the intervention was precipitated by the Hungarian desire to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<fontspan style="color:white;background:darkgreen;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</fontspan>]]</span> 16:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
== re-militarization of West Germany ==
Line 577 ⟶ 570:
I am not changing the spelling to the English version but the Wiki advice seems to suggest that the English spelling would be more appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling
[[Special:Contributions/80.44.155.162|80.44.155.162]] ([[User talk:80.44.155.162|talk]]) <small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 10:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I agree, especially given [[European Defence Community]]. General practice (though not policy) on WP for countries which do not have English as a primary language is to use US English for the Western Hemisphere and Commonwealth English for the Eastern hemisphere, and given the article [[European Defence Community]], it makes good sense to follow that here. I've changed all the spellings except for the direct uote (which was by an American speaker, and therefore "defense" is appropriate there). [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small><font colorstyle="color:#008822;">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>]]'' 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
== Infobox correction ==
Line 584 ⟶ 577:
==Cleanup required on "Heads of State and Government of the Warsaw Pact member states" section==
The photos in this section are, to say the least, confusing. These seem to be the leaders at the time the pact split up, though there's no indication of that in the (lack of) text of the section. In the case of the Albanian leader, it is a leader who never presided over the country during its time in the Warsaw Pact. I'd suggest this should be changed into a table, listing all the leaders for each country during their membership of the Pact, with either greatly reduced images or no images at all. It looks bizarre to have Ramiz Alia listed but not the likes of Novotny, Stalin, Hoxha, or Brezhnev. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...''[[User_talk:Grutness|<small><font colorstyle="color:#008822;">[[User_talk:Grutness|wha?]]</font></small>]]'' 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
== Spain in NATO in 1973 ==
The map in the wiki shows Spain being blue and a member of nato in 1973. The wiki on member states of nato says that it only joined in 1983. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.72.70.180|194.72.70.180]] ([[User talk:194.72.70.180#top|talk]]) 10:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== This entire page is full of mistakes..... ==
I've just come across this article for another reason, as it was a link that I used to see what was said, and barely any of this is factually accurate....there are truths in the article, but they get lost amongst the 'claptrap'. The obvious bias is clear, not that I think it's opposite number on NATO is any better in certain regards, but this is much worse. I'm going to dig up my military history books and find some Secondary and Tertiary sources for a much needed 'de-Soviet-isation' (coulnd't think of anything better...) of the content. One clear point in case is the Map used to designate the Warsaw Pact countries in 1973, which unlike the article, doesn't include Czechoslovakia....and as stated above incorrectly includes Spain as part of NATO, and having a Slovakian mother in law who escaped in the late 70s would be horrified about the obvious slant. <span style="text-shadow:6px 4px 2px green ">[[User:Nuro Dragonfly|<span style="color:purple">Nürö</span>]] <sup><span style="font-size:80%"> [[User Talk:Nuro Dragonfly|<span style="color:red">G'DÄŸ MÄTË</span>]]</span></sup></span> 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
:I would like to see what the book you got. Feel free to discuss changes. My best. <span style="font-weight: bold" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style="color:#a8a8a8;">AXO</span><span style="color:#000">NOV</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
== /* Central and Eastern Europe after the Warsaw Treaty */ brought attention to poor citations regarding 7 Days to River Rhine ==
The sections of this article, like the article for 7 Days to The River Rhine, have very poor citations which both do not support the statements made and are not from reliable sources on the matters. I would suggest referencing Soviet statements about Nuclear Weapons use in John Hines et al.'s 1994 'Soviet Intentions 1965-85' Vols. 1 and 2. If memory serves Makhut Gareev, in charge of Warsaw Pact planning at the time, makes statements relevant to the discussion, though not directly to the 7DTRR exercise as it was not declassified at the time. The general supposition that it is some kind of bible to Soviet/Warsaw Pact War Planning in the 1970's-1980's is not supported by the evidence available. In fact a faction within the Soviet General Staff felt that a war with NATO could be kept completely conventional as far as the Pyrenees by 1981, per Hines Vol.1. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/138.251.229.142|138.251.229.142]] ([[User talk:138.251.229.142#top|talk]]) 22:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Geostratic needs link or definition ==
The term geostratic needs a link to a wiki on the subject or an in-line definition [[User:TheArcane03|TheArcane03]] ([[User talk:TheArcane03|talk]]) 21:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
== Is the end date for the Pact really correct? ==
The NYT source which mentions 1 July also states that the dissolution became official when ratified by each individual country's Parliament. As such, isn't the end of the Pact on the date when the very last country ratified this? [[User:Transylvania1916|Transylvania1916]] ([[User talk:Transylvania1916|talk]]) 20:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Warsaw Pact Logo.svg|Warsaw Pact Logo.svg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-09-11T10:55:30.901665 | Warsaw Pact Logo.svg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Warsaw Pact Logo.svg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 10:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
== Bias ==
Post-Warsaw Pacts: the wording "after a supposed NATO first strike" needs to be corrected. Removal of the word 'supposed' will be necessary in order for the article to be one of facts and not opinions, as is required by Wikipedia[[User:Still-Learning-19|Still-Learning-19]] ([[User talk:Still-Learning-19|talk]]) 16:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC). The word 'supposed' leads one to be biased and is most definitely not written in the historical documents. 16:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
== Regarding Glasnost and Perestroika ==
{{diff2|1090778158|1090373524|May 31, 2022, 09:18}} - ''«End of the Cold War: add a small clarification from the source; tag for a better source References / Notes: Add subsection Notes»''
: In the edit above I've requested a better source than one given in the article and which is a dictionary[https://archive.org/details/newfontanadictio0000unse/page/638/mode/2up?q=638]. I would like to see a tertiary source discussing the matter of collapse. Probably in 3 or 3 languages that come to the same conclusion over the source of economical and political disintegration. Probably best to find these in [[glasnost]] and [[perestroika]] articles themselves. My best.
<span style="font-weight: bold" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style="color:#a8a8a8;">AXO</span><span style="color:#000">NOV</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 09:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
== Map missing part of USSR ==
Compare these two maps, bottom right.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Warsaw_Pact_in_1990_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics_%28orthographic_projection%29.svg [[Special:Contributions/24.35.93.245|24.35.93.245]] ([[User talk:24.35.93.245|talk]]) 23:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
== Membership list needs immediate revision! ==
Neither Finland nor Turkey were ever part of the Warsaw Pact. This is a major error, as membership lists are usually one of the first things people look at when examining alliances. Someone please fix this! [[Special:Contributions/2A02:8109:8AC2:9500:DEA:373F:36CF:3A01|2A02:8109:8AC2:9500:DEA:373F:36CF:3A01]] ([[User talk:2A02:8109:8AC2:9500:DEA:373F:36CF:3A01|talk]]) 21:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> - Thanks for flagging it, I've now fixed. Someone made that change in a drive-by edit earlier today. Strange. [[User:AntiDionysius|<span style="color:green">AntiDionysius</span>]] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:AntiDionysius|talk]]</span>) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)