Talk:Józef Piłsudski

Ethnicity again

I was hoping to get the opinion of the new WP editor, user: CityElefant, on the matter of Pilsudski's ethnicity. I believe he may have a unique insight on this subject as has he recently commented on Jogaila's ethnicity (see the Jogaila talk page) with the information that....("3/4 of his blood was Slavic"). CityElefant (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC). This suggests that he at least has an interest in such matters, and therefore perhaps some knowledge concerning Pilsudski's heritage. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Polonising names of Lithuanian administrative units

It coul'd have been amusing, if this would be a some sort of formum, and since this is trying to become an encyclopedia it is not. The only official language in Lithuania is Lithuanian, and an attempt to put other language names of an administrative unit is more than just a violation of WP:NOTADICTIONARY. it's an attempt to disrupt the Wikipedia as a system of rules.--Lokyz (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should we care about what's the official language in Lithuania now? This is not the Lithuanian Wikipedia. The Polish name is much more relevant in this context. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would only like to remain some users here that Pilsudski was born in the XIX century Russian Empire, not in the XXI century Lithuania. If we want to be consistent, we should stick to the Russian name of this place. The best solution, however, is to keep both Polish and Lithuanian names of his birthplace. This will help us avoid future conflicts, and I hope user Lokyz is not the one who will start yet another silly edit war. Or perhaps I am wrong. Tymek (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks really does not create a good atmosphere here. And the attempt to polonise Lithuanian administrative units names is rather provocative than productive. As fot the 19th century I hope you know, that Polish language was banned in public at the time Pilsudsky was born. So maybe the kirillica spelling should be more appropriate?--Lokyz (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no such administrative division as "Švenčionys (Święciany) district municipality" in Lithuania. Division "Švenčionys district municipality" was made in 1950, so what are you talking about "XIX century Russian Empire"? M.K. (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could remove the entire segment ("the Švenčionys district municipality") from the article. Modern administrative division is hardly relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That might be the best solution. Since we don't want to acknowledge the indisputable fact that Piłsudski was Lithuanian, why should that tidbit matter. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is simply no reason NOT to include it and it is useful information.radek (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Useful how, Radeksz? I'm serious. Useful how and to whom? Dr. Dan (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Useful to readers who may be more familiar with the Polish name of the city he grew up in, for example. You're basically removing it simply on the basis of IDON'TLIKEIT which is not a valid reason.radek (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You are totally missing the point. This is English WP and an encyclopedia cannot pap feed readers "who may be more familiar with the Polish name" (or any other foreign language). That is why there are appropriate links and redirects throughout the encyclopedia for that purpose. This is not my reasoning at all, and I definitely agree with you that it would not be a valid reason. So do me a favor and re-add the Lithuanian toponym in the lead of the Lublin article. You're welcome to use my earlier rationale that it was there that the Union of Lublin was signed. Besides wouldn't it be useful to readers who may be more familiar with the Lithuanian name of the city? If you do make the requested entry at the Lublin article, that would be nice. As far as it sticking, good luck. Furthermore, if you check your recent edits at the Kedainiai article, you can use your own other rationales as well. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So, Dan, would you support removing Suvalkai from Suwałki? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure I would, certainly from the lead. Even from Puńsk. Między innymi, co sprawia, że użytkownik zdecyduje się dawać mi paszy dzisiaj? Dr. Dan (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I've heard that Pilsudski, although born Roman Catholic, became a Lutheran when he married in 1899, since his wife was of that faith. Unless anyone knows anything to the contrary, this should be in the article. Ausseagull (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If this information can be properly referenced, per WP:V and WP:CITE, I support adding it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Józefa

Why is he not called Józefa? 15:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob G Weemhoff (talk • contribs)

Because he was a male and his Polish given name was, accordingly, "Józef". Nihil novi (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, Józef=Joseph, Józefa=Josephine :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You may indeed have seen Piłsudski's given name spelled "Józefa". That would have been the name in its genitive ("of Joseph") or accusative ("Joseph" as direct object) case. Nihil novi (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I saw his name mostly as "Jozefa". Can you please explain why for example many memorial plaques do that? -- 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)-- 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[I did sign with 4 tildes, but it does not turn up] 13:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob G Weemhoff (talk • contribs)

Give us some examples of such memorial-plaque texts. Nihil novi (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You will find some on: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski but I have a photograph from Krakov with the text: Pomnik Marszałka Józefa Piłsudskiego Został uroczscie ... -- 14:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"A statue of Marshal Józef Piłsudski was solemnly [unveiled]..." It's the genitive case! You would understand this, had you studied Latin, which is, like Polish, an inflected language. Nihil novi (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dictator Revisited

The issue is not whether this Lithuanian became dictator of Poland. He did. I'm not claiming whether this was bad or was good. Just that it's a fact. An addition like..."but widely accepted and supported by majority of the Polish population" does what? Change any of those facts? Hitler and Mussolini were dictators who were widely accepted and supported by majority of their populations. So what? It's a meaningless entry. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

saved Baltic states?

Statues and memorials of Piłsudski were erected in Estonia and Latvia after Piłsudski's death, the Baltic states to this day (with the exception of Lithuania) still look with favour on Piłsudski for saving them from Communist Russia.
Now I cannot comment situation in Latvia, but I can pretty certainly say that Piłsudski isn't considered to have "saved" Estonia from Communist Russia. Estonian War of Independence was over by the time then Polish-Soviet War properly heated up, and I am not aware of any direct cooperation between Estonian and Polish forces. I do believe that Poland and Pilsudski were viewed generally positively, but definitely not considered "saviors". Speaking of "saving" its actually sometimes mentioned, that by being first nation to repel Soviet westward advance and therefore receiving major Red Army attention after that, Estonia actually gave other Baltic states and Poland more time to organize forces :P --Staberinde (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As I see, that part has no reliable source, therefore it can be deleted. M.K. (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ukrainian name of Krakow

Well, why is important that the ukrainian name of Krakow ist Krakiv in this article? Especially since the paragraph in which this detail is mentioned has nothing to do with Ukraine? Deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.157.68 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Pole or Lithuanian?

It could good to add how he decribed himself: „Jestem Litwinem” (I'm Lithuanian) [1] and "Litwin to najlepszy Polak" (Lithuanian is the best Pole). Norvila (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2010 (EET)

If you could provide a reliable cite for "Litwin to najlepszy Polak", I'd very much like to see it. I am afraid at best your quote is mangled, as I am getting no hits in Google Books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Length

For a featured article this is awfully long (133 kb). How would people feel about trimming this down some? TallNapoleon (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Contradictions

Piłsudski was aware that the Bolsheviks were no friends of independent Poland, and that war with them was inevitable. The next paragraph reads, This was in contrast to the Bolsheviks, who proclaimed the partitions of Poland null and void... Piłsudski thus speculated that Poland would be better off with the Bolsheviks. Both citations are backed by the same source, but it needs clarification. --Klaus Bertow 08:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaus Bertow (talk • contribs)

It is clarified by the "He viewed their advance west as a major problem, but also considered the Bolsheviks less dangerous for Poland than their Russian Civil War opponents" sentence. Basically, Piłsudski expected that Bolshevicks would try to take over Poland, but had less of a chance at that than the conservative tsarist-royalists, who saw Poland as part of the Empire, and who had more international support. Hence, even if both sides were hostile to Polish independence, Piłsudski believed Poland could handle victorious Bolshevicks easier than the victorious royalists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice stache.

Tisane (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

November 11 ,and October 7, of 1918

Article states that Piłsudski claimed independence on November 11, 1918. But actually and formally Poland became independent on day 7 October, 1918. From this day, rules over Poland was in hand of president on the emigration (in UK AFAIK). So November 11, was more just a day Piłsudski aquired rights from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.7 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry

I removed the alleged Count title for the Butler family as it does not concern this branch (the Counts are descendant of Gotthard-Wilhelm von Buttlar). These Butlers were confirmed as noble on September 19, 1805 by the nobility assembly of Wilno (see for example the report № 629 of the heraldry department of the governing senate taken on October 24, 1829). Missing names come from further documents of said heraldry department. Charlik (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Brother Kazimierz

Polish Wikipedia mentions that he had also a brother named Kazimierz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.215.77 (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

True, but he probably belongs to the article about Piłsudski family. pl:Kazimierz Piłsudski was not a very notable figure, anyway. Reminds me, we need to translate pl:Józef Wincenty Piłsudski... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

section: Descendants

Trivial and absolutely of no consequence to the subject. Józef Piłsudski had two daughters: Jadwiga and Wanda. No sons. This is not an article about Piłsudski family, but about J. P. himself. Both Wanda and Jadwiga had their children (in London, England). None of them are "Japanese". --Emanek (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this stub-section is of little relevance. I support moving it to Piłsudski family. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Image for infobox

A while ago the infobox image was switched from File:Jozef Pilsudski1.jpg to File:Pilsudski 1910 1920 LOC hec 14263 restored.jpg. While the new image has higher resolution, it is not needed for infobox purposes, and I find the old image "nicer". Polish Wikipedia uses File:Jozef Pilsudski.jpg, which is also nice. Comments appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

As nobody seems to care much, I am going to restore the old image. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources on Pilsudski dictatorship: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, The Oxford Companion to Military History, Gale Encyclopedia of Biography, Columbia Encyclopedia and Time Magazine

Pilsudski's rule has been identified as dictatorship with many fascist features by many reliable academic sources and encyclopedias, published both during the Pilsudski dictatorship and later. Pilsudski dictatorship has been discussed on this Talk page earlier. Despite this facts, one of the editors of this page rejected the recently added sourced information as follows: "those aren't reliable sources (answers.com?), sources are being misrepresented and there's no discussion on talk (unless you're referring to some different account)".

To help with the discussion of this issue, here are the quotes from Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, The Oxford Companion to Military History, Gale Encyclopedia of Biography, Columbia Encyclopedia and Time Magazine (October 3, 1927). The first four sources are quoted, for instance at http://www.answers.com/topic/j-zef-pilsudski .

He served as Poland's first head of state until the constitution was established in 1922. After staging a coup in 1926, he served as premier (1926-28) and minister of defense (1926-35) under handpicked premiers, enabling him to rule as the dictator of Poland. "Jozef Pilsudski." Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 1994-2010

A militarist and extreme nationalist, he was again dictator in 1926-8 and from 1930 until his death. Although it was all too obvious what a resurgent Nazi Germany and Soviet Union meant for Poland, instead of seeking an alliance with similarly threatened Czechoslovakia, his foreign minister and eventual successor Józef Beck pursued irredentist claims. "Jozef Pilsudski." The Oxford Companion to Military History. Oxford University Press, 2001, 2004

From late 1926 to 1928, and again in 1930, Pilsudski served as Polish prime minister, ruling dictatorially and arresting members of the Sejm who opposed his rule. He was the real ruler of Poland, choosing the holders of important offices. "Jozef Pilsudski." Gale Encyclopedia of Biography. © 2006 by The Gale Group, Inc

There have been recent signs of the Polish Sejm (Parliament) attempting to oust Dictator Josef Pilsudski. The Polish political situation is somewhat unusual. The President (pedagogic Professor Ignatz Moscicki) is the impotent puppet of Josef Pilsudski, Premier, Minister of War & Marshal of Poland, who is actually the law. Although he appears in the Sejm on important occasions (such as political crises, when he dons his much-worn military uniform to terrify his opponents), he leaves much governmental business to another puppet: Vice Premier & Minister of Religion & Education, Professor Kazimierz Bartel.... http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,731016,00.html#ixzz2D20Y4Dan. Time Magazine, Monday, Oct. 03, 1927. Retrieved on 2010-11-22.

See also the following comprehensive contemporary treatise on the subject: Clifford Eugene Garwick, The Pilsudski Dictatorship in Poland, Ohio State University, 1929, 560 pages.

The references to these and other sources are presently restored in the article on Dictator Pilsudski, in the section titled Dictatorship. The editors are requested to review the article on Pilsudski to make sure that POV reverts by Polish nationalists, revisionists and anti-Semites do not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.172.86 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

These aren't reliable sources. This is Answers.com where someone (you?) put in a bunch of nonsense and claimed it was supported by reliable sources. It's not. The fact that they can't even spell the name right (and not just the diacritics) is a dead give away that it's junk. Compare the actual Britannica article [2] with the supposed Britannica-based article at answers.com. They're completely different. The real Britannica article is essentially very similar to the present Wikipedia article. The other one is just wacky.

One page had to already be protected because of your relentless POV pushing. I guess this one - a featured article no less - will need it too. Volunteer Marek  01:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Answers.com indeed quotes these encyclopedias. This however does not make these published encyclopedias unreliable sources. Please consider the following:

(1) Britannica Concise Encyclopedia is a respected and widely used reliable source, see for instance its stellar reviews at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Britannica-Concise-Encyclopedia-Editors/dp/0852298323/;

(2) The assessment of Pilsudski as a dictator from Britannica Concise Encyclopedia is genuine and not inserted into answers.com by somebody sinister. E.g., this assessment is quoted, word-in-word, by such sources as Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/concise/pilsudski,%20j%C3%B3zef%20(klemens) ) and many other sources (see e.g., http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22under+handpicked+premiers%2C+enabling+him+to+rule+as+the+dictator+of+Poland%22 )

(3) Both Britannica Concise Encyclopedia and Columbia Encyclopedia (the latter mentioning obvious fascist features of Pilsudski dictatorship) have already been used as sources in the Wikipedia article on Pilsudski, before the above references on Pilsudski dictatorship have been added

Besides, even if one questions reliability of 1 source, one should not remove all references and the whole section on Pilsudski dictatorship. The current sources quoted to support calling his rule a dictatorship include 5 encyclopedias, 1 academic publication (a book) and 3 contemporary newspaper/journal articles. All these references are to reliable sources, and they all clearly identify Pilsudski as a dictator and his rule as dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.172.86 (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard M. Watt, Bitter Glory: Poland and Its Fate, 1918-1939, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1979, ISBN 0-671-22625-8:

"Although the Piłsudski regime had certainly become authoritarian, its counteropposition activities could not be compared to those of many other European governments during this [1930s] decade of emerging fascism....

"In fact, Piłsudski regarded fascism as a menace and some of his government's most immoderate attacks were directed against it. These antifascist moves came to a head in 1934, when the government dissolved several crypto-fascist parties that had arisen out of the right-wing National Democratic Party. One of these groups, the National Radical Camp (ONR), patterned itself closely after the German Nazis, complete with anti-Semitic extremism." (P. 302.)

"Interwar Poland was not a totalitarian state, nor were its leaders avowedly antidemocratic. At no time did Piłsudski or any of his successors refer to their regimes as 'dictatorships.'

"Interwar Poland was as democratic as any of the 'successor states,' and much more than most. In a period when many much larger European nations, like Italy, Germany and Spain, all became authentically fascist, it is incorrect to imply that the Polish political system even modestly resembled theirs.

"If the world's view of interwar Poland was frequently less than sympathetic, much of this disapproval was the result of Piłsudski's... disdain for... public relations." (Pp. 461-62.)

Nihil novi (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Nihil novi: it would be appreciated, if you could explain the relevance of these quotes to Pilsudski dictatorship being discussed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.172.86 (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevance is that you're misusing sources and engaging in what is a textbook example of POV pushing. Putting aside whether answers.com represents the other sources adequately, we have a lot of sources which contradict the text you're edit warring to insert. We also don't generally use tertiary sources (encyclopedias or dictionaries) or primary sources (time article... from 1929!), particularly for controversial topics. Finally this is a Featured Article, it has undergone extensive vetting, and any substantial changes to it need to acquire consensus on the talk page first. The fact that you've been reverted by three different users should be a big hint that such a consensus has not been acquired.

Of relevance is also the fact that your actions on another article, Stefan Banach, led to that article having to be protected so you couldn't edit it.  Volunteer Marek  13:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Marek: your comments do not explain a relevance of the quotes supplied by Nihil novi to Pilsudski dictatorship being discussed here. The quotes do not say whether Pilsudski was a dictator, or not. I hope, Nihil novi and you are not bringing up the unsophisticated variation of the old ridiculous argument characteristic of Polish discourse: "Pilsudski was not as bad as other dictators/fascists/anti-Semites, and he even confronted some other dictators/fascists/anti-Semites occasionally, therefore he is not a dictator/fascist/anti-Semite and should not be called a dictator/fascist/anti-Semite".

Marek: to address the matters in your latest comment above (secondary, primary and tertiary sources), Pilsudski is called a dictator by a variety of reliable and verifiable secondary sources, including published scholarly monographs (see below). Along with such sources, he is called a dictator by a variety of other reliable sources - encyclopedia (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, The Oxford Companion to Military History, Gale Encyclopedia of Biography, Columbia Encyclopedia and many others), textbooks and reputable news organizations (Time Magazine, Life Magazine, Canberra Times and many others). Here is a small subset of relevant quotes from reliable and verifiable secondary scholarly sources. Ironically, the last reference includes a quote from a speech by Pilsudski himself, where the hero of the Polish nation acknowledges his urge to become a dictator, dating back to 1918. Happy reading.

Paul Dowswell, Dictatorship (Systems of Government) , Gareth Stevens Publishing (July 2005), ISBN-10: 0836858840, ISBN-13: 978-0836858846, p. 14, "General Josef Clemens Pilsudski, first president of Poland, and one of Europe's first dictators...Europe, too, had its authoritarian dictators before the rise of the totalitarians. Among them was Josef Pilsudski of Poland." http://books.google.com/books?id=nwM3fHM2XiwC&pg=PA14

Stephen J.Lee, European Dictatorships 1918-1945, Routledge; 3 edition (May 13, 2008), ISBN-10: 0415454840, ISBN-13: 978-0415454841, p. 315, "Authoritarian dictatorship is normally associated with Pilsudski [...] no one doubted that ultimate power lay in his hands: 'I am a strong man and I like to decide all matters by myself'[96]. To emphasize this point, he reduced the power of the legislature, arguing that 'The Chicanes of Parliament retard indispensable solutions.' He saw Western-style party political manoeuvres as highly destructive in Poland, since they produced a parliament which was in reality a 'House of Prostitutes'. " http://books.google.com/books?id=gLXkGLDxSkAC&pg=PA315

Jacques Delarue and Mervyn Savill, The Gestapo: A History of Horror , Skyhorse Publishing (May 17, 2008), ISBN-10: 1602392463, ISBN-13: 978-1602392465, p.172, "From 1926 to 1936 Poland, previously led by a democratic government, had lived under the dictatorship of Marshal Pilsudski, who before his death had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler Germany." http://books.google.com/books?id=UNZ4-s5a_IAC&pg=PA172

Jackson J. Spielvogel, Cengage Advantage Books: Western Civilization, Complete , Wadsworth Publishing; 8 edition (January 1, 2011), ISBN-10: 0495913278, ISBN-13: 978-0495913276, p.948, "Already in the 1920s, some eastern European states began to move away from political democracy toward authoritarian structures. [...] Poland established an authoritaian regime in 1926 when Marshal Joseph Pilsudski (peel-SOOT-skee) (1867-1935) created a military dictatorship." http://books.google.com/books?id=9lOrrFgCZIgC&pg=PA948

M. B. B. Biskupski, Independence Day: Myth, Symbol, and the Creation of Modern Poland, Oxford University Press, USA (December 12, 2012), ISBN-10: 0199658811, ISBN-13: 978-0199658817, p.30, "In 1923 Pilsudski, with his characteristic feigned nonchalance, commented on his own role in these events: 'In November 1918 something happened not the least historical, just a typical event... a man walked from the Vienna station who, it turns out, was named Josef Pilsudski. In the course of the next several days, without any efforts on the part of this man, without any pressure, plotting [podkopy] or any kind of permission, something most untypical occurred. This man became a dictator.[58]' " http://books.google.com/books?id=HsvoAiBX7JwC&pg=PA30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.172.86 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Marek: to address your "vetting" argument. Looking into the editing history of this article, Pilsudski article always called him a dictator, beginning as early as 2005. The current structure of the article (with a section titled "Dictatorship") has been finalized sometime in 2008. This current structure existed until February 10, 2012, when it has been edited to remove all mentions of dictatorship with a justification stating "calling Pilsudski a "dictator" is controversial and not supported by a majority of historians" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski&oldid=476093221 ). Characteristically of Polish scholars and enthusiasts, known internationally for their sharp wit and intelligence, the editor neglected to provide a single source reference from "a majority of historians". Despite admitting a controversial nature of the subject matter, the same editor deemed it unnecessary to initiate any discussions of these extensive edits on the Talk page of the article. The purpose of the current edits and this on-going discussion is to provide references from verifiable and reliable sources supporting the established consensus on the subject matter of this article.