Talk:Russian Enlightenment

An entry from Russian Enlightenment appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 24 September, 2006.

Wikipedia

Recent edits

Care to explain this edit ? I hope the reason for the deletion was not that it dared to mention Poland in a "Russian" article ? --Lysy^talk 16:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Care to read edit summaries for the explanation. Also, an explanation was provided here in response to Piotrus' request for others to join a revert war that sadly worked, as I can see. --Irpen 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. And the answer to my question is ? --Lysy^talk 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer to what question? --Irpen 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss potentially contentious content removal first. --Lysy^talk 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, your assumption of bad faith that I want to see a revert war is sad, if not unexpected. Catherine's views on Enlightenment are important to that article. The fact that she opposed parts of it, especially in political realm (French rev and Polish May Const.) are revelant here. The Russian National Library is relevant here, and so are its origins, as they involve both Catherine and the destruction of Polish Załuski's Library, a creation of Polish Enlightenment.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you think that it's helpful to repeat the same details, which were already propagated by you in the specific articles about Russian National Library, Zaluskis, their library, Polish Enlightenment (and in dozen others perhaps), also in the most general articles about the period, I can't share your preoccupation. We can't inflate the article endlessly by adding all the details about Catherine's purchase of Voltaire's or Diderot's libraries, about the collections she acquired to form the Hermitage Museum, etc, etc, because these belong to specific articles about the library and the museum. Mentioning Zaluski's Library alone is adding undue weight to an episode, hence, POV. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

The foremost mark of tendentious editing is assigning undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. Zaluski's Library may be of great importance for the Polish Enlightenment, so please discuss it in the relevant article. It has no place in the history of Russian or French Enlightenment, however. Unlike the personal libraries of Voltaire and Diderot which Catherine acquired for her collection, I don't think that Zaluski's collection is mentioned in a single non-Polish study of the subject. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it is good to have it and her view on Constitution of May 3, 1791 mentioned in the article if only to present how tendentious her understanding of Enlightenment was. I understand that any criticism of her or mentioning of her relationship to Poland can be irritating for Russian nationalists, but (unfortunately) the history of both nations was closely tied at that time and one has to live with it. --Lysy^talk 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, stubborn Polish nationalists are also entitled to their opinions. I wish you understood that this article is neither about Catherine II, nor about her policies in general, much less about her policies and opinions in regard to Poland. "Enlightenment" is not another word for Poland, whatever some nationalist editors may preach. Another consideration is that the language chosen by Piotrus for his pet passage ("looted") is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that any Poland-related issues are of minor importance the the article about Russian Enlightenment. Nonetheless since Wiki is not paper we have a room to mention those items, and I believe that both Catherine's views on Elightenment in other countries, and origins of Russian National Library are notable enough to be mentioned here - although again I agree with you that details belong in the subarticles, not here. This is why I think that half a paragraph we have now is enough - although I'd actually like to see the French aspect expanded a little bit. PS. Feel free to NPOV the wording of the article, but I think you meant plundering, not looting. I feel plunder is the right term here, what else would you suggest?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, of course WP is not paper and we have room, but you mistake "having room" and "giving undue proportion to a single event not in the scope of the article". If we had a full-blown article (A-level or so) it would be a different matter. If you look at Warsaw Uprising for instance, even such an important thing as the discussion of the reasons (or non-reasons) that Stalin had to halt his troops before Warsaw takes just a single para, while it is a much more important matter. I would say that it is all a matter of proportions. If an article is about X, things not directly linked to X must not represent an excessive volume (otherwise, well, the article is no longer about X)... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated stuff does not belong here and being "only" half a paragraph is not an excuse. This article has nothing to do with those events. Pasting the selectively picked stuff to the whole bunch of topics to emphasize the grudges Poland has against Russia is perhaps good to prop up the national patriotism. This is already done in Polish press and textbooks. The serious encyclopedia is, however, a different story. --Irpen 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read my posts above for an explanation of the relevance. For Ghirla: Zaluski library is mentioned in may English lanugage works, for example, here and here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What relevance, Piotrus? Origins of Russian library are relevant in the Russian library article. What are they doing here in the general article about Russian cultural movement?

Is the 1412 Polish plundering and looting of the Orthodox Cathedral of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist in Peremyshl by the order of Wladyslaw II (the thombs of Orthodox princes were ransacked and their relics thrown out to the street) who then trasnferred the cathedral to the Catholic bishop worth a mention in Renaissance in Poland article? I am about to write about those events in the upcoming expansion of Przemyśl article. Details will go to the cathedral article if it gets written at some point. I also thought of mentioning them in Polonization but by your logic, they belong to the Renaissance.

Don't you see that we've been through that? Brest parade and Molotov telegram added to a whole bunch of articles. Tyutchev, Russo-Polish War, Soviet partisans, Suvorov, lead (!) of Catherine II and even Ded Moroz getting Polonized. Now the Enlightment. Please understand, histories of the neighboring countries do not turn around Poland. Because Wiki is not paper we can have articles devoted to those events and they may be referred to in wider topic articles, but not the ones so loosely relevant. --Irpen 03:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you are wrong here, history of Russia is very much connected with PLC and Poland. Acknowledging this is not "Polonization" of the article as you put it. As I've explained above, it is relevant to the topic of the article. I agree with Ghirla that the language used might not be appropriate but then go and change it into NPOV instead of deleting the whole paragraph. I've just changed it a bit myself. --Lysy^talk 07:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The history of Russia is also very much connected with that of Ukraine, Georgia, Finland, Sweden, Turkey, China, Germany and whatnot. Perhaps we should delete the "Russian" stuff in order to accommodate the claims of all our neighbours to our history? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you know that Russia and Poland historically competed for influence in the territories between them for ages. Much of the history is shared between the two nations. --Lysy^talk 08:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I know nothing of the sort. You may be confusing Russia with Lithuania or Ukraine. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right. I should have expected that answer :-) --Lysy^talk 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well, Lysy. I will alert you as soon as I am done with writing the Peremyshl cathedral story and will rest assured that you will paste that stuff to the whole series of articles, starting from Jogaila, continuing to the History of Poland and, of course to the Polish Renaissance. I will try to be done with that sooner rather than later. --Irpen 07:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider this a WP:POINT attempt ? --Lysy^talk 08:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not until we see that information pasted to irrelevant articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

By who? I did not say I planned to add the looting of Peremyshl by Wladyslav II to Polish Renaissance. I will only include it to articles that seem to me appropriate and will leave it to you and Piotrus to spread it to more PL related articles, like Polish Renaissance for example.

WP:Point was Piotrus' copying of the stuff from Załuski Library first to Russian National Library and then here. No one said a word to his expansion of Załuski Library. The whole thing started when he proceeded with pasting that stuff to other articles.

So, I will elabroate on the Peremyshl story in the narrow article and in the meanwhile you will think of other PL article where it belongs. I already mentioned some possibilities above. --Irpen 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

---

May I ask how important were the looted collections of Załuski Library for Russian National Library at that time ? Were they marginal ? Did they make up a significant part of the library ? --Lysy^talk 09:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, this is not the RU library article. You can rest assured that Piotrus added this stuff there as well. --Irpen 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding the answer or pretending not to understand our questions does not reflect well on you, I am afraid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, you pasted that stuff to:

1. Załuski Library
2. Russian National Library
3. Polish Enlightenment
4. and now Russian Enlightenment

Did I miss anything? Lysy's question is irrelevant to this article. The role of the Zaluski library was important enough for the Russian library to be mentioned there. What is it doing in this article is the main question. One more time, I am taking it out. --Irpen 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this info should also be in Catherine the Great. It is important both to her article and that of R.E. to note that in creating one of the greated achievements of R.E., the magnificent Russian National Library, Catherine did not mind destroying it's equivelent in another country.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, this is en-wiki, an international project rather than pl-wiki or a Polish text book where the History of Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Germany, Berlarus and whatnot are presented as if they all rotate around Poland. Polish issue will not get an undue weight in Russian (or whatever other) articles ho matter how some try to achieve that. Your idea of having half of Catherine's article devoted to the Polish issue is revolting and follow the known trend of other articles. --Irpen 18:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC) ]] 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your idea of having half of Catherine's article devoted to the Polish issue - feeling Polonophobic recently, Irpen? Where did I suggest we need half of the article devoted to Poland? Half a para here and one at Catherin's is enough for me, thank you - although I see that even a single sentence is too much for you, sometimes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter if it was Polish or not. What is important is whether it is relevant to the article. Therefore:

Now, that we agreed that the role of Zaluski library was important for the Russian library, the next question naturally is:

Was the Russian National Library important for Russian Enlightenment or not ?

--Lysy[[User talk:Lysy|talk

And if so, is the origin or RNL important?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)