Talk:Józef Piłsudski

Article removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because Not NPOV -- See Criterion #4 for GA or discussion below— Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisx (talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 May 2006

• I wish you would leave Pilsudski alone- he is not yours to debate in your western cafes and offices; he is ours, the Polish peoples, leave the discussion to us.

Pilsudzki's views

So, how did Pilsudski move from being a revolutionary socialist to Polish nationalism and anti-communism?

Also, I've found at least one site (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWpilsudski.htm) which makes opposite claims about Pilsudski at Versailles (!). -- Pde 05:30, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't think he really moved in the sence of changing his worldview. Socialists and communists have always opposed each other, and socialism does not exclude nationalism. In other words, Pilsudski wanted to create a socialist national (not to confuse with national socialist!) state -- rather than e.g. making it another soviet republic.

Lithuanian birthplace?

May we include the Pilsudski's birthplace name in lithuanian, in brackets or any other way? For even I, living here in Vilnius, don't know, where it is. Or, maybe, it's in Belorussia now? --Linas Plankis. Vilnius. 2004.01.06

I have no idea what's the lithuanized version, but the village is located some 60 km. NE from Wilno. AFAIK nothing to see there; the mansion does not exist anymore (burnt by the bolsheviks in 1920) and the only remnant is an oak tree planted in where Pilsudskis cradle once stood.Halibutt 08:41, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Was the oak tree planted in the exact spot that the creche was located? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT/ Just found the lithuanian name - it's Zalavas. You can see a picture of the village here.Halibutt 08:45, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I understand it's a pre-war picture. Now it's a depressing, ruined kolkhoz and absolutely nothing to see apart from the oak tree Halibutt mentioned. I added the Lithuanian name as Linas asked. I also think there's no need to write a seperate article about that village, so I suggest changing Zulow from hypertext to plain text. Kpalion 15:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, the article about the "depressing village", the "ruined kolkhoz" has been written, inspite of there being nothing to see there apart from the oak tree (I assume Kpalion is speaking as a result of him visiting Zalavas first hand). But the article does link one to Alexander Ulyanov and to Rurik, and a plethora of other "links" that are undoubtably very pertinent to its existence. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am strongly opposed to the fact that Pilsudski' birthplace is refered to as Russia (as well as school he attended in Vilnius - city is refered to as being Russian). Come on people, this land was always called Lithuania, and to name it 'Russia' is very incorrect to say the least. Lithuania was just ocuppied by the Russian empire at the time Pilsudski was born (the same with Poland).

So I suggest deleting links to Russia and leaving Lithuania only. Because otherwise it sounds...incorrect - I am trying to be polite. Otherwise, how can you explain that there is no reference to Russia writing about Pilsudski' studies years in Ukraine? At that time it was also a part of the Russian empire but there is no such reference to Russia as in the case of Lithuania.

This part of the article is VERY wrong, so please improve it.80.91.145.210 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fascist?

Pilsudzki was a dictator, granted. But a fascist? Can you give some source for that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

He was the greatest Pole of all time and my great grandfather was proud to serve under him in the Polish Victory War of 1920 against Russia

Now this is why this article was delisted. Colonel Mustard 07:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this question seems to pop up every know and then, see my post here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments by anon user

10-31-2004: Jozef Pilsudski was never "president" of Poland. He was, immediately after World War I, literally "Chief of State" (Naczelnik Panstwa), akin to a dictator ad interim. The box below his portrait is gratuitous and misleading, as it introduces no new information of importance while slipping in inaccuracies, e.g. Pilsudski's legal wife when he was Chief of State was Maria, not Aleksandra. Likewise, calling him a "military officer" (he was one, though self-taught) is somewhat like calling Napoleon an "artilleryman." The current guide to pronouncing Pilsudski's name in English is inaccurate and unreadable. There are further inaccuracies and infelicities in the article as it stands, which it would be well to correct.

1. Jozef Pilsudski was never "president" of Poland - Indeed, "head of state" would be better. Also, he was chosen as a president of Poland but he did not accept it. So, technically speaking he was a president, but this is but a detail. Anyway, he is called "head of state" and "chief of state" throughout the article.
2. The box below his portrait is gratuitous and misleading, as it introduces no new information of importance - it is similar to boxes on most of important statesmen. Since most of them have now very long and detailed articles, the boxes are something in between the header (which gives only the most basic data) and the full article (which might be a tad too long for someone who only wants to check some facts and figures. Also, the boxes are a great help for those who print the articles.
3. Pilsudski's legal wife when he was Chief of State was Maria, not Aleksandra - corrected.
4. calling him a "military officer" (he was one, though self-taught) is somewhat like calling Napoleon an "artilleryman." - so, what profession you propose? If he had any, it was definitely an officer. One can hardly call "revolutionist" or "president" a profession.
5. The current guide to pronouncing Pilsudski's name in English is inaccurate and unreadable - what is inaccurate? Also, it is not a guide on how to pronounce the name in English since it is assumed that all users of English Wikipedia already know English language and know how they pronounce the name. The IPA code explains how the name should be pronounced in the original language - that is Polish. As such it is (to my knowledge) correct. I can't say it's unreadable either since IPA is used worldwide.
6. There are further inaccuracies and infelicities in the article as it stands, which it would be well to correct. - feel free to list them here or, even better, correct them yourself. This is wikipedia, all are equal and all can edit the articles :) Also, why don't you register? It's free and it's always better to speak with someone who has a name... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 21:40, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

11-01-2004. Dear Mr. Halibutt,

Thanks for your response to my 10-31-2004 comments.

My objection to Pilsudski's career box is that his career doesn't lend itself to boxing. It is too complex for so simple a procedure--less analogous to the career of an ordinary president than to that of, say, Napoleon or de Gaulle, neither of whom (thank God) has a career box (though each is supplied with a generous "contents" box). Each--Napoleon and de Gaulle--is described as a "general and politician." In the case of de Gaulle, at least, I would prefer "statesman"--as I would also for Pilsudski, on whose career de Gaulle seems to have modeled his own. (Please see the English-language Wikipedia de Gaulle article, which provides a hint of circumstantial evidence for this assertion.)

My reference to pronunciation is, of course, to authentic Polish pronunciation, as presented to Anglophone readers in a way that they can readily absorb. What percent even of Wikipedia readers are conversant with IPA? How many will have the patience to look up an IPA table, or to interpret it? Though it may not be as "scientifically correct," why not use unambiguous English-language-based transliterations?

Perhaps I will attempt some revisions to the Pilsudski article. The subject deserves a good collaborative effort.

I may consider registering, though--apart from the practicalities of communication facilitation--the idea of monastic anonymity holds an appeal for me. Do you recommend use of full or partial name? initials? pseudonym? Any substantial pros or cons?

Thanks,

Anonymous

1. Dear anon, as to the statesmen box - I still believe it has more pros than cons. It's not designed for those who would like to know every single detail of Piłsudski's life. It's for those who want to know only what is said in the header and a tad more, but not too much.
2. As to his profession - I personally would like all of the following included: "revolutionary, journalist, officer, statesmam" all are true and any of them is true as well. Staesman is as good as the others, I'll change that.
3. As to IPA- there is no alternative to it so far. Either we want to give the reader a chance to find out how the name is pronounced or we try to make some approximation. English phonetics is not too good at representing other languages and there's little difference between the way a sound can be described using English phonetics and the way an average Brit or American would read the name. "English-based transliteration" is just as bad since it is both ambiguous and wrong. "Yoozehph Peewsootskee" can be read as either [juzεf piwsuʣki], [jʊzef piwsʊʦki], [ju:zəf piʍsʊʦki] or any other variation - none of which is correct. I added an .ogg pronounciation key for all those who are not able to read IPA, hope that helps.
4. Indeed, the article needs significant expansion and revision. It's great that there are people out there who are willing to help.
5. I appreciate your idea of monastic anonimity, it's not a thing you meet very often on the web. Of course it is much easier to talk to people who have some name (or a pseudo) since you can always check who they are on their user page or at least check their contributions to see what they do and how they do it. However, it's your choice and your contributions are equally welcome. Also, you might be interested in my recent article on Maria Piłsudska. I would like to add an article on the other Maria Piłsudska (his mother) one day as well.

-- [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:56, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

The statesmen box is a really useful tool for statistical info, used througout Wikipedia for similar purposes. I recommend we either leave it or expand it. I strongly recommend registering, if for no other reason that for people keeping a tab on article vandalism each 'anon IP edit' screams 'likely vandal, likely vandal' and I have to waste a little of my time checking what was done with the artcle. And as Halibutt wrote, once you have your own username here, we can talk and know who is it we are talking with (as in 'this is the guy who knows much about Pilsudzki'), and when I see your edit in the recent changes/history section I (hopefully) can just nod thinking ('another job well done') and don't have to bother checking the details of the edit looking for vandalism. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• How I long for the day when his spirit finds another body- Oh Marshal Pilsudski We People of Poland love you!

That's touching. What do they think of General Jaruzelski? Perhaps this savior will come from Lithuania just like Pilsudski and Jogaila did. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit hagiographics

The article could stand a little NPOVing, especially the part about the battle of Warsaw

What do you mean? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:06, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Pilsudski was a brutal dictator and an incredibly controversial figure in Polish history. He was a poor general, a poor politican, a poor strategist and his insane invasion of the Soviet Union came close to destroying his own country. The article simply paints him as a visionary statesman, which fails to capture the controversy or the criticism.--Francisx 23:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tram stop Independence

This quotation looks in Polish language as follows: "Wysiadłem z czerwonego tramwaju na przystanku niepodległość". There was never a square named after Independence in Warsaw, neither in the times of Piłsudski, nor later. The square Logologist was probably referring to is Saski Sq. (Plac Saski), which wasn't renamed until after the war - to Victory Sq. (Plac Zwycięstwa). Currently it is known as Piłsudski Sq., by the way.

There of course is an Independence Avenue in Warsaw (Aleje Niepodległości), but the street was not built and named until after Polish-Bolshevik War, not to mention the moment when Piłsudski "got out of the red tramway". Oh, I forgot that there's also a tiny Independence Str. (Ulica Niepodległości) which was built some time in the 1960's.

So, all in all, the quote from Piłsudski is original, but I doubt it was wordplay on any actual place on earth, one should understand it more figuratively. Especially that at the moment of the famous Piłsudski's "getting out of tramway", all of Poland was still under foreign rule and I doubt any of the occupants liked the idea of Polish independence enough to name squares or streets after it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:44, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

This article repeats this quote several times in at least two different variants, and a third one can be found on Wikiquote. Can we agree on the best one and get rid of the rest (or at least move all alternatives to Wikiquote)? Some of the variants are rather hideous 'let's adress each other with honorific titles'... On a related note, the endnotes in this article are a mess and should be upgraded to the < ref > system.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Inarguable the most eloquent is the one provided by Pilsudki's poland.gov biography, also which makes the most sense. This is why I inserted it into the quotes section and renewed its link a while back. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wysiadłem z czerwonego tramwaju na przystanku niepodległość". It's a figure of speech. He said that he got off the Red Trem at a stop called independance. Meaning that he worked together with the Communists to drive Russia out of Poland but he was not interested in being a Communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.25.68 (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not Communists but Socialists. He had been a Socialist, not a Communist, leader. Nihil novi (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly socialist. The last of communists split off PPS with PPS Lewica around 1905.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed fragments by anon - vandalism or not?

198.81.26.7 did some editing, most of which I think border on vandalism. He deleted:

• the Commonwealth had given mutual protection to its constituent peoples against the Teutonic Order, the Mongols, the Russians, the Turks, the Swedes and other predatory neighbors until the partitions of the late 18th century. - note about Commonwealth past successes
• new democratic - reference that Poland was a democracy
• The adoption of a new Polish constitution in April 1935, tailored by Pilsudski's supporters to his specifications--providing for a strong presidency--came too late for Pilsudski to seek that office; but the April Constitution would serve Poland to the outbreak of World War II and would carry its Government in Exile through to the end of the war and beyond

I will add back 2 first parts, as I know they are correct. I will leave the third one for for those who know more about the April Constitution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 09:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The third statement is correct too. It would not suffer from some more internal links though (like Polish Government in Exile, for instance). It was indeed a move towards stronger presidency, it was not changed until WWII and it was the legal basis for the existence of the Government in Exile. The exact explanation is that the April 1935 constitution gave the president the right to name his successor during the war. The successor took the office with the very moment the earlier president said so and was the head of state until the Peace Treaty is signed. As you probably know there was no peace treaty between Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union after the war. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:12, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw

Wouldn't it be appropriate to move paragraphs 4-6, under "Polish-Bolshevik War," to the article on the "Battle of Warsaw"? As they stand, these paragraphs seem a bit too detailed for inclusion in this article. Logologist 19:31, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed ref

Would there be objections to add the following reference to an article?

• "Figures of the 20th century. Józef Piłsudski: The Boss who Created his State Himself", Zerkalo Nedeli (the Mirror Weekly), Feb. 3-9, 2001, available online in Russian and in Ukrainian.

I invite Polish editors who can read in one of the two of the languages above to take a look. The disadvantage is that it is neither in English nor in Polish. The advantage is that it is available online, readable by many editors likely to be interested, well-written, covers the topic broadly and presents another view on this figure from outside of Poland. Feel free of course, to add the ref yourself. --Irpen 22:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Damaged box

The article's bio-summary box presently reads: "{{{Office}}}." I was unable to insert: "Chief of State." Who knows how to make this repair? logologist 20:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War NPOV

The fourth paragraph needs some attention to get it to conform to NPOV and factual standards. Most notably the assertion that "The claim that the Russian invasion was a reaction to initial Polish attacks is an effort of communist propaganda to conceal its intentions in 1920" contradicts an earlier statement that "April 1920, Marshal Piłsudski (as his rank had been since that March) signed an alliance with Ukraine's Symon Petliura, to conduct joint war against Soviet Russia. The Polish and Ukrainian armies, under Piłsudski's command, launched a successful offensive against the Russian forces in Ukraine." The claim that Piłsudski saved Western Europe from Soviet invasion needs to cite supporting sources or better yet, have its own Wikipedia article describing this historical debate. Finally, the general tone of the paragraph is ardently Pro-Polish in its combination of justifying the Polish participation in the war, demonizing the U.S.S.R., and finally presenting the claim that Poland saved Western civilization.

And did it not? Halibutt 15:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it did not. There is zero evidence that the Soviet Union was ever preparing to invade Westen Europe, certainly not in the middle of the Russian Civil War. Pilsudski was an opportunist who thought he could take advantage of a weak Russia to carve out more power for himself. It was a foolish move, that almost cost Polish independence.--Francisx 23:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, mr Francis, that every knows there were orders given by Lenin to attack Hungary (Budapest) and German (German communist were already preapering to restart their revolution) so if after victory in war with Poland USSR would probably attack these countries. And I ask you: what then? Every kid knows that bolsheviks were planning to conquer the whole Europe. With millions of hands in Poland, Hungary and other countries and german weapons it wouldn't be a problem. So give more respect to the Pilsudski and Polish-Bolshevik war. Please, a little more. Mr Brak

That's nationalistic rubbish. Lenin never had any plans to conquer all of Europe -- or even any of Europe outside of the USSR. Remember, he took the Soviet Union OUT of World War I, and ceded claim to Poland. There were never any plans to conquer Germany or Hungary. While there was some very limited support for German and Hungarian communists (e.g. the Sparticists and Bela Kun) that support was minimal in the extreme and pales in comparison to the divisions Pilsudski used to invade the USSR.--Francisx 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

education, culture...

Why is there no informations about Pilsudski's contributions to Poland's education, culture, etc. ? The article is incomplete as it is.

Pilsudski's Nationality

Since Pilsudski was not born in Poland, but in the Russian Partition of the extinct PLC, and in the part that was historically Lithuania, is his nationality a subject of debate? Were his family polonized Lithuanians or Belarusians? Is there evidence, genealogically or otherwise, that the Pilsudskis emigrated to this region from the historic Polish "heartland"? Obviously the Marshall himself placed great sentiment on the region (mother's grave and so forth), but is his actual ethicity debatable. Scholarly information would be more appreciated than nationalistic (from any side) ranting. Dr. Dan 14:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been discussed ad nauseam (or ad mortem defecatam, as we say in Poland) here and there over the past two years. To make long thing short, Piłsudski himself stated that he was Lithuanian, though on other occasions he referred to himself as a Pole. However, he referred to GDL rather than Republic of Lithuania and there was no contradiction in being both Lithuanian (by heart or by heritage of the GDL) and Polish (as the majority of Lithuanian gentry). It was quite common back in his times and earlier, note Mickiewicz writing in Polish on Belarus called by him Lithuania)...

Piłsudski's surname itself was toponymical as his ancestors (that is the starost of Upita, previously known as Bartłomiej Ginwiłł or Ginet) adopted the name in 1539, after their home village of Piłsudy near Taurogi. [1], [2], [3]. Halibutt 23:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC}

Thank you, Halibutt, for the clearing the matter up somewhat. Please be patient with the stupid. Let me digress for a moment with an anecdote about the Czech composer Dvorak. There was a daily radio contest, (muzyka poważna), in my hometown; the announcer said here's an "easy question", and asked in what rural U.S. city, did Dvorak spend his summers in the late 19th century, while he was in the United States. A young boy called in and correctly stated that it was in Spillville Iowa. Again, there was a brief reference to the "ease" of the question, and the child received a prize of some sort. This entire exchange angered me so greatly that I emailed the jerk of an announcer, a piece of my mind. "THEY ARE ALL EASY QUESTIONS, IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWERS". He wrote back, Dear Doctor, you are right, I shall apologize to the boy.

Please keep in mind that whether it has been discussed "here and there over the past two years", or not, there may be a child (like in my story), or an older person who is being exposed to the question, and the answer for the first time in their life. Some patience, please. I have not given up on the idea that Wikipedia is a forum to educate, even though lately I am slightly dissapointed in that some have made it a forum for POV pushing, and nationalistic propaganda. I am also considering the possibility of certain elements, deliberately creating these divisions (like a non-Pole making an anti-Ukrainian remark in an article that would be "sensitive" to Ukrainians, while posing as a Pole). Spent some time in the PRL, and know that game.

You say "Pilsudski himself stated that he was Lithuanian... Not disputing this, but what is the source for that, please? Dr. Dan 00:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dan, the "ad nauseam" remark was simply an explanation on why I don't have enough patience to repeat all of the arguments and replied in short. It was not meant to offend anyone, believe me.

As to Piłsudski claiming he was Lithuanian, there's a lot of such remarks in his works (read many of them, though not all as he was quite a fertile journalist prior to 1914). Once he said that "Lithuanian is the best version of a Pole", on other occasion he stated that "Poland is like a donut - empty in the middle and sweet along the rims" and was generally known for such cutting remarks. Imagine the faces of the Dmowski's nationalists when Piłsudski stated he's Lithuanian in the Polish Sejm... BTW, his Polish "Lithuanianess" was one of many serious problems the nationalists had with Piłsudski and many of them hated him for that ([4], for instance).

Anyway, barely any of his memoirs and collected works were translated to English, but you might want to check this and this. Almost any biographical note mentions he was Polish-Lithuanian (much like Czesław Miłosz, Adam Mickiewicz and many, many more people. Halibutt 13:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, regarding the Norman Davies assertion that Pilsudski once referred to Poles as a nation of morons, can you corroborate this, or is Davies full of baloney? Dr. Dan 02:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I consider you highly intelligent, and a gentleman. When, and if I get "huffy", please do not take offense. None is meant. As you know, I'm a newer participant in Wikipedia, and I am not always aware of what has been discussed, or "resolved" in the past. I can imagine the frustration in sometimes having to have to recapitulate some of this information. Keep in mind that someone may be reading an article about "cabbages and kings", for the first time in their life, today. None of us should take for granted what the other knows, or does not know. If you knew me better, you would know that Nothing, and I mean Nothing, is more important to me than fairness, and a lack of bias, in generally all aspects of life. In the world we live in, it ain't easy!. The last place I want to see it, is in what I think is a great project, namely Wikipedia. I look forward to working together in the future to make our contributions less argumentative. In fact, I have lots I want to add to, and edit, that is far from this part of the world. There are still some aspects of POV pushing and propaganda, that I have to resolve, before I leave this area. I'm sure I will ruffle some feathers. I'm curious if you agree, that lots of what I perceive to be excessive bias and manipulation of history to have some merit? And I'm not referring to the names of towns and villages in Polish, either. In any case, I'm sure we'll be talking. Dr. Dan 14:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC) p.s. I really never heard of Stefan Rowecki, until I read the article a day or so ago.

• Of course he was Polish- ski proves that to the largest degree. Its like asking if a clear sky is blue. He was born in occupied Poland, and his Polish birthplace was stolen by the USSR and given to Lithuania.
  • It's always nice to have a logical discussion with an anonymous contributor. Sorry, but the -ski proves nothing (please read something about how the family acquired their name). Too bad you think that the nation of Lithuania is synonymous with occupied Poland, or that Lithuania was "occupied Poland" during the partitions. A historical reality check would tell you that unfortunately Lithuania was occupied by Russia as was Poland during the partitions. Later the U.S.S.R. (one could ask if Poland wasn't also occupied "de facto" by it too, following WW II) again occupied Lithuania after Pilsudski was dead, and the U.S.S.R. didn't exist before he was born. But unfortunately parts of Lithuania were occupied, rather than "stolen", by Poland (including its historical Capital) between 1922-1939. Too bad you didn't closely read the above discussion regarding his nationality and go to some of the links, it might help you. And BTW, a clear sky at night isn't blue. Dr. Dan 21:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Some - from the time of PSW war - are certainly PD. Do we nee them? Article is in French, but I am pretty sure I can translate the captions :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Prokonsul, the pictures look great. I like that the French used both names, Wilno/Vilnius, in the appropriate caption. Dr. Dan 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it's good to do so on the first use of such names in the article (but never in the article title - it looks horrible then, at least for me). Let me know which pics captions I should translate and add to the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not that picky. Some of them we've seen before. The unknown ones are better. It's all in the proper context that really matters. Dr. Dan 04:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

On failure of Riga, Międzymorze and minorities

A page worth reading: [5]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a fascinating book. heqs 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR

This gentleman has been listed on the new [[Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR]] can someone add a reference on the Category talk:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR when he predicted this?

Thanks for the addition, I am interested in hearing from you.

Thanks, Travb 13:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

2x references

This page has two seperate sections labled "references". Doesn't that seem a little odd? The titles should be a little more specific to help people navigate the page better. Kevlar67 05:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Commonwealth had defended the interests of its predominantly Polish nobility

I believ that this view, introduced without any discussion by an anonymous author, should be discussed. It's propaganda, because the interests of Lithuanian nobility were very good defended. Would the anonymous anti-Polish fighter specify, how the Lithuanian nobility was unequal? Xx236 07:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobility was the most priviliged class in the PLC, and most of the szlachta were Poles or polonized, thus the nobility was predominantly Polish. We can discuss if the sentence is necessary here, or perhaps expand it to show some positivie aspects of the Commonwealth, but in itself he sentence looks mostly correct to me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Lithuanian nobility spoke Ruthenian during more than 100 years after Jagiello and slowly introduced Polish (not mentionig Latin), but didn't change its nationality. You mean probbaly the 18 Century, when e.g. Ruthenian Kościuszko wanted to Polonize the peasants. But even in the 20 Century some Polish speaking people identified themselves as Lithuanians (krajowcy, Czesław Miłosz and his uncle Oscar). Mickiewicz in "Pan Tadeusz" calls the Poles "Mazur", his language is specific, partially edited (I'm not sure when the editing started). Xx236 08:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't change the fact that they were always a minority. Even at Union of Lublin Poland had 3:1 numerical advantage in nobility, and I'd have think that with polonization it the advantage incresed. That is not to say that the polonized Lithuanian nobles abandoned their roots: they still cosidered themselves 'Lithuanian' (i.e. from GDL) even if they spoko Polish rather then L or R. But the nobility was predominantly Polish, that cannot be disputed - no matter if we define Polish and 'ethnically Polish' or 'polonized'. Finally, note that at least some authors conclude that in those times being a noble meant being Polish (a citizen of the PLC).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Tag

Criterion #4 for a good article tag, requires that it follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect: (a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias; (b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

This article is very clearly POV, a virtual hagiography of General Pilsudski, failing to address the great many critics of his dictatorship that there have been, including many within Poland who consider his regime to have been catastrophic for the country. I'm not trying to bias the article in the opposite direction, but these criticisms need to be brought up and addressed. I therefore move that the Good Article Tag be removed until NPOV is restored.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisx (talk • contribs)

Francis, please remember to sign your post. You raise some interesting points, could you give some sources that support them? I.e. which sources would you recommend we use to make this more NPOVed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The main oponents of Pilsudzki were national democrats. I can imagine Western comments about Poland if they ruled Poland and started some anti-Jewish actions. Pilsudzki was the best, what the Jews of Poland could have had. The other opponent were pro-Soviet leftists, some of them terrorists.

It's true that love to Pilsudzki was partially imposed at schools. Xx236 06:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now done a major copyedit to the article, it has been expanded and has many more references. I don't think the article is POVed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has evolved very quickly into a detailed and satisfactory biography. Not to mention the 33 footnotes, which try their best to dispel pov accusations. Эйрон Кинни (t) 09:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

38 now. Эйрон Кинни (t) 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Conrad quote

I've been trying to find some reference to this Conrad quote regarding Pilsudski, but have been utterly unsuccessful. It'd be neat to find some information on when and where Conrad wrote/said this, as the wording of this article currently implies that Conrad praised Pilsudski after the demise of the latter, whereas Conrad himself died in 1924, before Pilsudski took power in 1926. I assume this statement was made following Pilsudski's resignation in 1922. Thoughts, anyone? Colonel Mustard 07:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We are thrice lucky: the text had an inline citation ((Zdzisław Najder, Conrad under Familial Eyes, Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. 239.)). The book is also available on Google Print ([6]). And finally the p.239 is available without restrictions: [7]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Curious as to your opinion - would you say that implies he made that statement in 1920? I think that if the article could read "Conrad ... said, in (year), that..." it would make this less ambiguous. Colonel Mustard 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Leader into Article

The sentence, ...He, more than any other Pole..., strikes me as a little POV, but I left it alone. I agree he was very, very, significant in the "resurrection" of Poland, but would have Poland been re-established without him? Dr. Dan 18:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's up to alternative history to decide :) The very sentence can be referenced to online ref (nr 1, see last para). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it implies that the other Poles and their contribitions were of lesser importance. In any case I left it alone. I am more of an admirerer than detractor of Dziadek. Dr. Dan 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I share your POV, although I'd expect (and wont object) that this will be changed. Note that near the end of the artcile there is a statement about controversiality of this figure, and that he was also portrayed in negative light. Although the article has currently no sources for that, and it would appear to be a minority view (judging for example from the positive portrayal of him on the official website of Polish gov.) I am sure that this will be expanded and some critical sources added.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"He, more than any other Pole..." in the very top of the article is more than problematic. It certainly is an opinion and should be presented as such and not in the lead but in an assessment section and in an attributed form. I am sure we can find the citations of authors that think so. Still, to have such a blatant statement at the top, such citation should be not to a particular scholarly work, but to a reference work, that is written summarising the existing scholarship. Neither Britannica nor Columbia have such an amazing statement in the lead: (EB: "Polish revolutionary and statesman, the first chief of state ") (CE: "Polish general and politician. He was exiled (1887–92)..."). I think this is so obvious that there won't be a fight over this. If I were tagging it, I would tag "dubious" rather that "citation needed" for the reason above, but I beleive that won't be necessary and some of the authors would take care of this.

Second, P. was not of a Polish, but of a Polonized Lithuanian nobilty family, just like Mickiewicz, another iconic figure in Poland. This does not imply that he was alien to Poland by birth. Lithuanian nobilty was so polonized that they they used exculively Polish (and Latin), were all of the Catholic church and associated themselves firmly with Poland, but still ethnically he wasn't a Pole. Litvin or Litvak articles are in pity shape, but at least this article should reflect on that.

His mother's family name was known in Lithuania no less than the name "Pilsudski" as attested by the following:

"There was in Jmud a powerful family, the Billeviches, descended from Mendog, connected with many, and respected by all, in the district of Rossyeni".

I am sure our Polish friends know where this is from (besides, note Billeviches not Bilewicz ) but that's a separate issue to take care.

List of his names certainly doesn't belong to a lead. The first paragraph should we sufficient as a lead. As my edits to PL related articles judging for the PSW series are met by some with hostility, I, for now, bring up some obvous things at talk. --Irpen 04:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Piłsudzki wasn't a Litvak. Xx236 09:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My source calls him a Litvin. And judging from what we know about his father's and mother's Billeviches line he indeed was. --Irpen 16:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the first issue (He, more then...) was already addressed and the lead is more NPOVed now. I tentatively agree with your agruments about his origins, but what would you like to add to the article? Billewiczowie were likely a middle szlachta family, with some notable memebers, although I don't think it's a matter of much importance to that article (again, feel free to be bold and prove me wrong :)). On a related note, see Leon Billewicz, and I cound 7 member of the family in PSB (User:Piotrus/List_of_Poles/Biergel-Bzowski), starting from 16th century. List of altenative names are often found in the lead, but I won't object if they are moved (just I can't see where?). It's great we start from the talk, but I don't foresee much reverts over those issues, they don't see too controversial (of course, I may be just too optimistic...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to be bold to prove anything here. I thought it is obvious and I had no doubt that the the source of my quote above is easily recognizable.[8] --Irpen 19:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I actually thought about this, but well, we cannot use Sienkiewicz for historical references, now, can we? :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a sec, useable or not, do you question that both JP's father (also Pilsudski and mother, the Billevich) are of Polonized Lithuanian' nobilty rather than the Polish one? If not, the article should say so and we move on to other issues. --Irpen 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How would you propose to word it? This *may* get tricky, but I'd like to see your version.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My recent edit and objection concerning ...He more than any other Pole..., was because of its position in the lead of the article, and its being an opinion, rather than an encyclopedic entry that you would typically find in a reference work. I personally have mixed emotions about the statement, because on the one hand, it's largely true, and on the other hand, it diminishes the enormous work and sacrifices of many, many, people who worked towards the same end. That being said, I didn't intend to start a new "war" over the issue. On the other matter, somewhere on these very talk pages talk pages, I discussed Pilsudki's national origins with Halibutt. He, as well as many others, agree that the Pilsudski family was of Lithuanian origin (not many Lithuanians in the 1930's liked the fact), from Samogitia, and on many occasions, he personally made remarks to that effect. Nothing to lose sleep over. Finally the article seems a tad bit long (which I also do not object to), and more of an actual Biography, than an Encyclopedia article. Perhaps it could be trimmed a little. Whatever the consensus is, is O.K. with me. Dr. Dan 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If by trimmed you mean deletion of any info, I strongly object to it. If you mean moving to a subartcle, I don't mind, but I personally prefer longer to shorter and thus will leave this to others to 'summarize' if they feel some parts are too long.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, deletion is a strong word, yet there is a lot of non-encyclopecic information in the article, that is unnecessary, and is over the top. When I copy-edit, and do so of my own volition, or am requested to do so by others, I try to leave the essence of the original contributor alone, and make sense out of it in English. It's not only difficult, but ocassionally I get chided for throwing my POV into the ring. Sometimes I do, but most often I do not. Earlier in my Wikipedia "experience," I attempted to make small copy edits to Russian contributors (I wasn't even registered with a user name), and absurd arguments became fights, and I left these edits alone. The mistakes remain grammatically flawed, and humorous, and will stay that way until someone else bothers to correct them, (not all of my Russian friends). I have better luck with requests for copy edits from Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine (note they are alphabetically listed), mostly by email, and I'm happy to comply with the requests when I have time. Again these copy edits do not always reflect my own viewpoints. Lately, I have tried to stay out of some really absurd and contentious arguments, between people that go from article to article, fighting each other. Its a waste of time, and borders on intellectual onanism. Dr. Dan 02:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

among them supporter of Dmowski

supporters? Xx236 09:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Fixed. But be bold.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jewish minority

The article does not discuss the attitude of Piłsudski toward the Jews. Xx236 09:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this raised in any sources, other then some vogue remarks that as he was tolerant to various minorities he had good rapport with Jews (again we see an interesting counterpoint to Dmowski, who was often accused of anti-semitism). We have a photo in elinks to include, if you want.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• [9]
• Pilsudski issued a blanket decree granting citizenship to 600,000 Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union
• For the majority of Polish Jews, Pilsudski's death was a shock

Xx236 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. I will see if I have time to add something from them, feel free to do so before me :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Zułów (today Zalavas)

Both point to the same Zalvas. Either

• Zułów (today Zalavas) or
• Zułów (today Zalavas)

Xx236 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind either.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro wording

"...considered to be responsible for Poland's re-establishment following World War I."

"...and is considered to be largely responsible for Poland's resurrection, after almost one hundred and twenty years of its disapearence, having been partitioned 1772-1795."

I honestly don't see this edit as an improvement. First "re-establishment" is more NPOV than "resurrection", with its religious overtones. Second, the the longer version has a flowery air to it that supports the "hagiographical" tone that some critics have complained about. Thirdly, the last two phrases are perhaps unnecessary digressions, seeing that the article on Pilsudski, not the history of Poland.

I should add that Dr Dan's other edits have been excellent, IMO.--Chris 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

to his concerns over the Maginot Line

What about his concerns about the Soviet policy? Xx236 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

What about them?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pilsudzki wanted to have equal relationships with Germany and SU so Poland had treaties with both countries. Xx236 07:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe we already mention the non-agression pacts and such. If you have more refs, or want to expand/clarify someting... go right ahead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

JP in PSB

The Polish Polski Słownik Biograficzny online portal [10] had quite a few interesting items that should be linked, including IIRC the downloadable only surviving audio recording of Piłsudski's voice ("O śmiechu"), not to mention an extensive bio. Unfortunatly the site is down and will likely be down until the end of the month. I will see if I can dig up any info through google cache or net archive, but for now I am just leaving this note here for myself and others to check this site periodically if it is back online and when it is, to raid for info :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately this is not the only surviving record. There is also his famous monologue on the idea of voice recording, the one with the question to whom would the voice belong after being recorded. Unfortunately, the guy did not speak publicly too often... I must say I love his style, both as a journalist and as a speaker. //Halibutt 06:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I heard about this, but I thought there was only one recording and this was the one and the same? Would you have any links to that one? Where did I read about it...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go :) //Halibutt 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GA re-nomination passed

I promoted the article since the criterias were met toward the modifications requested for the first GA nomination. Lincher 03:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Shmuel Israel has made the unsourced and unbacked claim that Pilsudski was an anti-Semite, not unlike Hitler. Pilsudski was not an anti-Semite. I know this for the following reasons:

• Polish Jews under Pilsudski's government flourished (they weren't killed or persecuted for their ethnic background or religion). As a matter of fact, they loved Pilsudski. Did you not see the photo of him greeting Polish Jews in Krakow?
• Your claim was unsourced.
• From all that I know, Pilsudski, unlike Hitler, never made an anti-Semitic remark.

If you provide the article with a valid and definitive source and/or reference, then the claim can stay, but for the time being, I removed it. Эйрон Кинни (t) 02:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as we have good refs to show his pro-Jewish stance (see #Jewish minority).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The following statement is made by Emmanuel Ringelblum in his book Polish-Jewish Relations During the Second World War translated and published in 1992 (a Jewish historian that wrote papers before and during the second world war, till he and his family were executed in 1944 by Nazi's): "In order to understand the Polish-Jewish relations during the war, we should examine the pre-war period. It will then become evident that the disastrous mistakes of the Sanacja regime had fatal repercussions for the country and determined the fate of the Jewish population in Poland. The policy of the ruling Sanacja brought the country to a state of economic and political ruin. This policy helped unleash such an anti-semitic hue and cry that Polan before the war became the leading anti-semitic country in Europe, second to Germany alone"(Ringelblum 1992:10).

In a footnote is mentioned that the Sanacja anti-Jewish policy is dealt with, among other sources, in the book of Simon Segal called: The New Poland and the Jews, New York, 1938)

I think it would be more clear to leave the discussion open about weather or not he was an anti-semite, because it is not clear and sources tell different things.

Action still needed in response to peer review

The peer review revealed that this article has too many links to solitary years.

This task is easy with the aid of a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. If somebody wants to remove the solitary year links, feel free to use the tool. bobblewik 13:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsourced statements

Despite all my efforts, I can not find citations for:

• the quote: [He was acutely aware of the shakiness of the non-aggression pacts, remarking sarcastically:] "The question remains, which of the stools will we fall off first."
• that Polish Air Force squadron during World War II, the No. 305 "Greater Poland" Squadron was named after him
• Piłsudski was interested less in the trappings than in the reality of power, to be exercised for the security and welfare of his imperilled country. He made a point of drawing no financial profit from public office.

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I reinserted the first quote (albeit in a different manner, slightly altered, but nonetheless to the same effect) with a citation. Aaрон Кинни (t) 10:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Audio license information

Please don't use straight links to any kind of media files, including audio. An easily accessible link to the license information has to be available, just like with pictures or photgraphs. I've fixed the problem and you're welcome to find other solutions to the linking problem as long as you don't use the previous solution.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jóżef Piłsudski category

I think that before the next FA vote starts we should create a Józef Piłsudksi category, with articles such as:

• The personal life of Józef Piłsudski (family, mistresses, religion etc.)
• Józef Piłsudski as a revolutionery
• Józef Piłsudski as a soldier (what kind of a commander was he?)
• Józef Piłsudski as a politic

and perhaps (keeping in mind the last FA vote)

• Eastern policies of Józef Piłsudski

Comments? Mieciu K 14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, do we have enough content for a split? IIRC it was Halibutt who said there is room for expantion, and nobody complained the article is too long.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  14:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't like large articles but others might not share mine opinion. Mieciu K 18:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I prefer long ones, if only because of my experience with the Polish-Soviet War, where main article has continued to receive relatively much attention after split, but the subarticles are virtually forgotten: therefore any material moved to subarticles is going to receive much less attention and be not updated/NPOVed/referenced or get duplicated in main.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  03:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I like long articles too. But quality over quantity, and I think this article should stay in the current form. The article covers pretty much all of his life and it's not overly too long, but the footnotes really do make the article longer. It's the sources, not the actual content that makes it long. So in my opinion, it's fine as is. Aaрон Кинни (t)

Too many images

What's that? A photo story?--AchtungAchtung 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• A picture is worth a thousand words. Since when pictures are not welcome in wikipedia articles? Mieciu K 23:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There a probably thousands of pictures of every politician. So why don't use thousands of pictures in an article...--AchtungAchtung 00:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• The correct place for a "thousand photos of a politician" is wikicommons not wikipedia where pictures are an addition to the text of the article. Do you have any specific requests which images do you think should be removed? I personally do not think that anything is wrong with the text to pictures ratio in this article.Mieciu K 10:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion ?

It is rather strange that this biography of a Main Polish politician of the XXth Century, on Wikipedia as on Polish official sites, doesn't mention any Family Religious background, i.e. catholic or protestant, except a certain hostility to compulsory attendance of Eastern Christian Orthodox Mass. I read in a French Biography, he was born Protestant. Is that true ? HUM MAG 193.252.105.81 19:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I will look for answers in his biography. There was something about diffrent religions being problematic to his early relations/marriages. IIRC from reading various sources, he was not very religious and cared little about differences in various branches of Christianity.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Prokonsul Piotrus, I found the answer in the article "Maria Piłsudska" in English Wikipedia. He converted to Protestantism in 1899 in order to marry Maria Piłsudska, a divorcee, because the Catholic Church forbade divorce. Then he was not born Protestant. As this fact is registred in the biography of his wife, I guess it is not necessary to mention it in this article. Thank you for your reply. HUM MAG 193.252.105.81 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I will see if I can find a reliable source on this and add this here, tnx for the tip about this article, I'll look at the sources used in it. If you plan on visiting Wiki and commenting more in the future, you may consider registering, it's easy and facilitates editing and communication.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Prokonsul Piotrus, my registration has been done previously on French Wiki, and yet now on English Wiki, to facilitate communication. Thank you.HUM MAG 20:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you regged here, too. Unfortunatly in the Urbanowicz bio I am reading I can't find anything specific about the religion - but he may mention it later, he has the habit of digressing often.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

POV introduction (dictator)?

If it is POV to call Joseph stalin a dictator(as some editors think) then most likely it is also POV to call Pilsduski a dictator.--Staberinde 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. While I personally don't find it offensive in either case, if Stalin was not a dicator (sic!), nobody was.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They were both dictators. The definition of a dictatorship is when one man controls the entire state with absolute rule. Stalin was definitely. And Pilsudski was working behind the curtains. Therefore, they were verifiable dictators. And it's not POV, it's simply a fact. Aaрон Кинни (t) 05:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is it?

Could Prokonsul Piotrus and friends (Halibutt, et al) let me know what historical consistency regarding the naming of Vilnius should be? When in the interest to make the name less confusing to a modern reader, and Vilnius is employed, this is reverted to Vilna (because that's "historically accurate" during the Partitions of the PLC). Upon my following this "rule of Halibutt" and changing Wilno to Vilna, P.P. restored Wilno. And the reason would be, what? Dr. Dan 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In this historical context (majority of city's inhabitants were Poles or Polish speakers), 'Wilno' should be at the very least mentioned on the first usage. I have no problem with double naming, nor with Vilnius going first - I know some of our Lithuanian collegues are very sensitive to that - but considering the article's context, I think keeping Wilno in there is justified.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw statues of Piłsudski

There are at least 2 statues of Piłsudski in Warsaw: outside the Belweder Palace, Piłsudski's residence, and on Piłsudski Square, named for him. It would be nice if photos of them could be added to the article. logologist|Talk 07:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If only User:Halibutt was more active... but anyway, check commons:Category:Jozef Piłsudski Monument at the Belweder and commons:Category:Józef Piłsudski Monument in Warsaw :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added them to the Belweder and Józef Piłsudski articles.

Somebody once deleted the statement, in the latter article, that Piłsudski never profited from his offices. In fact, he supported himself and his family, in self-imposed political exile, by writing (including Rok 1920).

logologist|Talk 22:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very slowly reading the Urbankowicz bio, I believe I am just up to the begining of IWW, so I have not yet read much about him in office. But from what I have read in other sources, it fits the picture.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Where was Pilsudski Born?

A rather stupid question, one would think. Pilsudski was born in Lithuania, and ironically, much to the dismay of ultra-Polish nationalists, he called himself Lithuanian on a number of important occasions (including in the presence of Sejm members). Zalavas was in the the Lithuanian part of the PLC, just as Kraków was in the Polish part of the PLC. And while we're at at it, I don't think that in regards to Poles born in Kraków during the "partitions," we should have to explain that it is more historically accurate, to say they were born in Krakau, the offical language and designation of the city in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Or should we, Beaumont? Dr. Dan 00:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point being? I do not change any name, I do not claim it was in "Poland" or "Russia" (whatever), so do not pull my leg. Since in the text it is clearly stated that Zalavas was in the the Lithuanian part of the PLC (your own claim), it is reasonable to add now in Lithuania. It is interesting that Pilsudski called himself Lithuanian, you're welcome to add it in the article (a source would be important in this case). --Beaumont (@) 09:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Piłsudski was a social democrat, had nothing against the jewish community and promoted an idea of a międzymorze federation instead of a "Great Poland" so it is really hard to find Polish ultra-nationalists who would like him. Mieciu K 13:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Beaumont, my point being the implication that it is now Lithuiania, is to suggest that it was then, not Lithuania. My point being that Kraków and Poland were Polish, even during the partitions. I also feel that my syntax brzmis (sic) better (no leg pulling), than yours. Mieciu, what does the Jewish community have to do with the location of Rome in relation to the location of the Crimea? As in, gdzie Rzym, gdzie Krym? Btw, I was refering to today's ultra-Polish nationalists, not Dmowski and friends. Dr. Dan 14:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more correct to say it was partitioned PLC under Russian Empire?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Dr. Dan, I removed "now" without your help, thanks anyway. Did you notice it before reverting and posting the above comment? BTW, in times of Pilsudski it was a part of PLC under partitions (as stated in the text) and then of Poland. --Beaumont (@) 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The question was, where was Pilsudski born? The answer is Lithuania. And all the King's horses, and all the King's men, and all of the weasel words, are not going to change that fact, just as they couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Piotrus, as to your suggestion, the article stated as much, before Beaumont began "experimenting" with reality. Incidentally, Beaumont please take the trouble to read Halibutt's clarification on Pilsudski's family roots as well as some quotes of the Marszałek. You'll find them above on this discussion page under #14 Pilsudski's Nationality. Perhaps, Halibutt can enlighten you further on the subject when his health returns. After he accused Ghirlandajo of making a death threat, against him, I'm concerned about his state of mind. Btw, can anyone create a link ( maybe the Prokonsul can ), showing us this death threat? Dr. Dan 23:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, let me remind you this article is about Piłsudski, not Halibutt or Ghirladajo. Let me repeat the advice I gave you: more content edits, less talking.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

An unusual detail

Hi, everyone. Among things I do here is research for the article on Constantin Stere, and I recently came across an information that I would best formulate like as this:

In 1889, while in Krasnoyarsk, Piłsudski shared his exile with Constantin Stere, a Bessarabia-n born Romanian author and politician. The two remained friends for the rest of their lives; Stere included the Polish leader, under the name Stadnicki, as a character in his account of the Siberian sojourn, the novel În preajma revoluţiei ("On the Eve of the Revolution").

I didn't know if this would be worth a mention in the article (it is not first-rank information), so I consulted User:Piotrus, who advised me to post it here and let you guys decide what you want to do with it in the future (perhaps you will create new subarticles).

Feel free to rephrase and split the above fragment as you see fit, in case you decide to include it. The reference for it is: Z. Ornea, Viaţa lui C. Stere, Vol. I, Cartea Românească, Bucharest, 1989, p.113 (red links are pending articles, so it's best not to remove them if you decide to use it). Cheers, Dahn 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PS:I am not watchlisting this page, so, if you have any comments or questions, please drop a note on my talk page. Dahn 20:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nietzsche's Image

I read, many years ago, in that paragon of accuracy Ripley's Believe it or Not, that at one time it was illegal in Poland to publicly display an image of Friedrich Nietzsche because he was a dead-ringer for Pilsudski. Why this should have been a problem, I cannot imagine. Can anyone verify or disprove this? JackofOz 02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem probable at all. Piłsudski might've had huge influence over what happened in Poland, but he would've had have someone to pass such law first - and I bet everyone would know that if such a law was indeed passed. //Halibutt 03:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was - kind of - true. For details, read the article on Polish legislative election, 1930. It was not Nietzsche that was illegal in itself, it was the political game around his image... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus. As always, the truth is out there. JackofOz 03:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1919

We need to expand on Piłsudski in 1919 (Operation Wilno, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Piłsudski and Lithuania

Another thing we need to expand upon is P. relation to Lithuania. Here is an interesting article (in Polish).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pisludski on international scene in 1920

Davies in WERS, p.228 (Polish edition) writes something I found very interesting about how Pilsudski was seen before the Miracle at Vistula: "in 1920 he had nothing of his later prestige. As a pre-war revolutionary he led his party to splits and quarrels; as a general in the WWI he led his legions to internment and disbanding; as a marshal of the Polish Army he led it to Kiev and Vilnius, both now lost to Poles. He left the Polish Socialist Party and his Austro-German allies; refused to ally himself with Entente. In France and England he was considered a treasonous ally who leads Poland into destruction; in Russia he was seen as a false servant of the allies, who will lead imperialism to ruin. All - from Lenin to Lloyd George, from Pravda to Morning Star - considered him a military and political failure. In August 1920 all were in agreement that his catastrophic career will be crowned with the fall of Warsaw." -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions about references

Ref #7 goes to icrap.org. Ref #78 goes to members at lycos.org. Are these appropriate? Ref #50 (multiple citations) is missing. Novickas 18:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone explain why a reference (Note 91) to a site discussed at Wikimedia blacklisting/whitelisting, republika.pl, [11] should stay here? How is an ordinary reviewer, not conversant with blacklisting/whitelisting policy, supposed to know what that space between republika and pl means? Does that indeed mean something? An ordinary interpretation would be that the space in the URL was just a typo. Maybe Wikimedia is the place to discuss this, but this is a start. Novickas 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the link, as well as most of the above issues.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Republika.pl reference

It's good that icrap and lycos members references were fixed. However, why does a reference still go to republika.pl? It is mentioned at the spam talk page on 9/2/07: "If I recall correctly, republica.pl is a forum site, which is the reason it is on AntiSpamBot's autorevert list (per our external link guideline, our reliable sources guideline and our 'what wikipedia is not' policy (i.e. "not a linkfarm")). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)" [12] Has its status changed since then?

How did the space between republika and pl get inserted without being mentioned in a diff? See the diffs [13] and [14] - if one scrolls down into the article, to Note #52, one finds that the space was inserted at some point between these two adjacent versions. Did that insertion enable it to fly under AntiSpamBot's radar? How did that happen, and why is a forum site still being used as a reference here? Novickas 00:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking. Republika.pl is a webhosting service, and the page in question provides quite a lot of information which I is certainly not controversial - it seems to be the best English language website on this armored train.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware that there have been repeated requests for republika.pl's removal from the blacklist; your request to have it un-blacklisted was granted [15] in October 2006. But was Dirk Beekstra then speaking in error when he described it in September 2007 as being on AutoSpam's autorevert list, and, since it is a forum, not a reliable source? [16]

I'm also asking you, as an admin, to explain how that space could have gotten inserted without showing up in the diff. Novickas 01:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it is not a forum. As for the hard to see addition of spaces in this diff, I'd suggest you bring up at WP:VP(T) or similar place - I have no idea, seems like a bug.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you are saying Dirk Beekstra WAS mistaken? A Google of "republika.pl spam" brings up quite a few sites. Novickas 02:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please indent your posts correctly. Yes, I think he was mistaken - but this is off-topic here - perhaps you should ask him.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Per this reply today, the site is blacklisted [17]. I will remove the link and whatever material is supported by it. Your own conscience should guide you in removing the site in other articles that use it. Novickas 01:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is some misunderstanding somewhere. Many pages from republika.pl are perfectly acceptable references. Please don't remove the link in question; if you wish, raise it on WP:RSN.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of this site, which has been completely blacklisted at various times, continued on User talk:AntiSpamBot/Sep2007 and User talk:Shadow1. Novickas 16:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality Reference

It causes me to have a laugh when pseudo-academics, and so-called "academics", feel that they legitimize Wikipedia by needing to pepper an article with an excess of "references". In reality their inclusion of an overload of references often encumbers a relatively small sentence with seven or eight "references" (sometimes even very questionable references), and cheapen the entire project (see the Vilnija article for a prime example). Regarding the very recent request from P.P. to give a reference regarding Pilsudski's ethnicity (presumably the Lithuanian component), I suggest that a very precursory investigation of Pilsudski's own statements on the matter will suffice to explain my inclusion of his ancestry in the article, and then leave the matter alone. Do take the time to read Halibutt's input on the matter on this talk page under Pilsudski's Nationality (no. 14), where you'll find sufficient evidence that substantiates that fact that Pilsudski himself acknowledges his Lithuanian roots. If you really need to, you can then then add the references yourself. But really, why bother? Dr. Dan —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this in principle, but since it took about 3 seconds to find it in Britannica, I put the ethnic reference in. Why bother? for some reason this is listed as a Good Article, despite its hagiographic tone. Novickas 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand frustration, which arose. Probably every bigger biography article about this person will note about his Lithuanian ethnicity. But indeed, why bother? M.K. 14:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Most Polish historians would probably agree that Pilsudski was ethnicly Lithuanian but he himself probably considered himself Polish. If you want to go into detail Pilsudski was from a family of Lithuanian gentry, which became Polonised over time and by the early XX century could hardly be called Lithuanian gentry. So the real question is not was Pilsudski Lithuanian, the question is how do you define someone of Lithuanian ancestry. Mieciu K 14:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Till his death he perfectly spoke Lithuanian language. So this gentry is evident I suppose. M.K. 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Until World War II, many educated Lithuanians spoke Polish. Did that make them Poles? Nihil novi 04:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a problem here - specific definition is polonzed Lithuanian nobility. Why invent any more definitions, this one is quite exact. Or the problem is word Lithuanian?--Lokyz 15:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I also made an impression that problem may lay in Lithuanian rather then sources. In other hand do we have a quote to Polish? M.K. 10:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Find me a biography of Piłsudski that doesn't mention he was Polish. In English.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Extend your further cognition and with WP:OWN. M.K. 13:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You wanted a reference and got a reference. "Davies" no less. And our own editor, Halibutt, has further elucidated with more evidence corraborating this issue. Dr. Dan 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly he was Polander (sorry for somewhat confusing form) - as he did participated in resurrecting that state. But we're talking about well known origins of his family, that he openly declared himself.--Lokyz 22:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is any Pole who knows anything about Piłsudski who is unaware that he came from a Polonized Lithuanian noble family. Polonization of their upper classes is something that some Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians cannot forgive or forget to this day.

It's not unusual for political leaders to come from foreign backgrounds. Napoleon was not French but Corsican; Lloyd-George was not English but Welsh; Hitler was not German but Austrian; Stalin was not Russian but Georgian; and so on. Nihil novi 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not quite right about forgiving, I'd rather say it's about not forgetting. anyway - this trend of antagonizing Polish vs Lithuania, or rather Polonised is NOT Lithuanian is born in the middle of 19 century, as the new "philological" understanding of a nation has taken over the civilizational approach - a nation is society that lives in a certain country. Philological version is mostly German invention, quite ironical though - as a means to separate themselves form francophonic German aristocracy.

Now about the forgiving/forgetting part - sadly Russian Empire's PR politics has done it's job. There was an approach taken be Ekaterine - that there are no Lithuanians in Lithuania, there are merely Russians misled by Poles, and this "fact" was repeated over and over again by Empire's court historians the whole century. I'm not going into the details right now, because I do not have much time at the moment. This hard ideology finally succeeded into separating Lithuanian gentry and Lithuanian people in the middle of 19th century, and was on the way to exterminated Lithuanians as such (see knygnešiai for an instance). The speed of de-Lithuanisation in the middle of 19th century was furious - it was then, as Vilnius region rural population stopped speaking Lithuanian. Further problems arose as the Lithuanian national revival became also a social movement, so the landowners were perceived as a "not good class". The 19th century is the Gordian knot of almost all Lithuanian-Polish relation problems, myths, hate and enemity. But this is a very long story, and it might be told, if someone would want to hear each others arguments. And finishing - from nowadays perspective Lithuanian nobility, despite partial Polonization is still a part of Lithuanian nation, and important part of Lithuanian history (or Lithuanian and Polish history, not only one of them).--Lokyz 09:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in reading more about this. If someone could write it up as an article or as a new section for an existing article, I would be happy to review it for English usage. Nihil novi 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just out of morbid curiosity, anyone know who decided to divide up his body that way? Novickas 14:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Piłsudski willed his brain to science (in his youth, he had planned to become a physician, and his daughter Wanda became one, a psychiatrist). Given his devotion to his mother, he may well have willed that his heart be interred with her at the Rossa Cemetery, much as Chopin's heart had been placed in Warsaw's Holy Cross Church. The remainder of Piłsudski's earthly remains were deposited at Wawel presumably at the insistence of admirers who viewed him as a sort of latter-day Polish monarch. Nihil novi 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nihil has pretty much got it right, and it was not unusual to want to analyze the "great" men's brain in the past century through dissection. Even Mussolini's brain was put through this "process" after the debacle at Milan. Dr. Dan 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But there's a significant difference between the two wordings: the article says "his brain was donated to science" and Nihil says "he willed his brain to science". It would be interesting to see the actual document. Novickas 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica states ([18]): "For many Poles Lithuania had become a part of their country. Others considered that, if the Lithuanians were to set up an independent state based on the principle of ethnic population, Vilnius—with its large Polish population—should become a part of Poland. The Polish head of state, Marshal Józef Pilsudski, who stemmed from a Polonized Lithuanian noble family, drove the Red Army out of Vilnius in April 1919." I wonder if using this article - without author, from an encyclopedia - would be as welcome for the fact about large Polish population in Wilno? I would like to see more - preferably Western academic - references for the fact that Pilsudski came from a polonized Lithuanian nobility. Majority of sources simply state he was Polish, after all - we should have something more then one encyclopedia article claiming differently.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What is it about your own entry from Britannica, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, that confounds you, ... The Polish head of state, Marshall Jozef Pilsudski, who stemmed from a Polonized Lithuanian noble family, drove the Red Army out of Vilnius (not Vilna, or Wilno (modern Vilnius)? What part of Norman Davies' assertion that Pilsudski considered himself a "Lithuanian of Polish culture", causes you to put the article in a constant state of turmoil, and the neutrality tag to be placed until this matter is fairly resolved? Dr. Dan (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent referenced information removal

I am very disappointing to see such developments then one contributor insisting to delete properly referenced information without any discussions with other contributors, particularly with those who thinks that such info is relevant to the article. We have information about Pilsudski’s teeth in the main article, but how Pilsudksi regarded nation, his sympathy to military power and terror - not. I hope that WP:IDONTLIKEIT would be eliminated from this article from no on. M.K. 22:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's start one by one.

Lithuanian noblility - all right, Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries mention here that he was a "Polonized Lithuanian noble". However for example, [19] here Lerski clearly writes "a Polish noble family from Lithuania". Clearly, nobody denies Piłsudski's connections to Lithuania. But a claim that he is a "polonized Lithuanian noble" is not supported by most sources, who would usually use a formulation similar to Larski. I would suggest this should be discussed in biography section in detail and lead should contain a non-controversial formulation. "a [[szlachta|noble]] family with [[Lithuanian nobility|traditions]] dating back to the [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]]" was pretty stable and certainly doesn't hide his Lithuanian connections. Can't we agree to leave the lead at that?

"Piłsudski called Poland a nation of morons". The quote is offensive and out of context, and simply does not belong here.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, firstly you should present any evidence that majority of English sources uses your suggestions. M.K. 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Per WP:V, it is your extraordinary claim about him being "Polonized Lithuanian noble" that needs to be shown to be more than some fringe view. Britannica states " Polish revolutionary and statesman"; Columbia states "Polish general and politicia" (note that word Lithuania does not appear there at all); Encarta states " Polish revolutionary, independence fighter, and national hero,". This is the accepted view of him. We are the only encyclopedia that mentinons his Lithuania connections in lead - and I have no problem with that. But the version about his family being Poloznized Lithuanian nobility which appears in a tiny minority of sources (prove me wrong) belongs not in the lead, but in biography section (if anywhere at all).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So, "Born into a noble family" should be also eliminated as your presented sources do noy mention it either, or this is an exception? M.K. 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I can give you a citation from Urbanowicz and dozen of other sources for the noble family if you want. Are you disputing he was born into a noble family? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also cam give you a dozen sources which call him Lithuanian noble (other LIth-POl nob.)[20], so can I include Lithuanian noble now? M.K. 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The biography includes the "polonized Lithuanian noble" claim. PS. And this claim is not even mentioned on Lithuanian wiki...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just give it up. A google book search of "Pilsudski Lithuanian" turned up [21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27], and that's just the ones where the visible text clearly mentioned his Lithuanian ancestry, as opposed to the merely tantalizing ones and the evil pay-per-view references. Novickas 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Google play? Try "Pilsudski Polish", you will get several times more hits. On the other hand, you can get hits for Pilsudski + German / Russian / French and so on. Should we add those too? Sigh.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned that the above citations are those which directly mention his Lithuanian ancestry; you can check if you want. You could also rewrite the sentence to state the ancestry controversy; but let's limit ourselves to 3 references apiece. Novickas 01:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Any of those goes into details on that? Unfortunately Urbankowski doesn't. In any case, I hope we settled this, with the biography noting the difference in sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the brute force and morons references from Davies - RFC. We are entitled to know the exact adjectives that Norman Davies applied to Pilsudksi's beliefs. Novickas 00:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your knowledge is one thing, usage of controversial statements in encyclopedia is another matter. One can find plenty of quites from notable authors which should not be repeated here. And the reason for this is WP:NPOV. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV does not exclude attributed matter from notable sources; in fact it encourages that, as part of the process. Novickas 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And this is why we mention this theory in the biography section. What more do you want? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We want to use Davies' own words, not your "strong hand" rewording. Novickas 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that? All right, here are the reasons for my objection: 1) citing entire sentence borders on copyvio, particularly as my version summarized his concept well enough 2) it is not clear that this is really relevant to the article ("Pilsudski believed that the world was ruled by...") - his beliefs on what the world is ruled are not that relevant to his disillusionment by democracy and 3) the word terror is is non-neutral, per WP:WTA and should be avoided if not necessary. There is certainly no consensus that Piłsudski's reign was a 'reign of terror', and its connotations with the dictators like Hitler of Stalin would only be misleading.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not invent things, that citing entire sentence is copyright violation, especially when proper attribution is provided. Please stop WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach, especially then we have in article like these : Some years before his death Pilsudski, in a statement which epitomises the essence of modern Polish history, stated: “To be defeated and not yield is victory. To win and to rest on laurels is defeat”. ... Pilsudski’s vision of Poland, paradoxically, was never attained. He contributed immensely to the creation of a modern Polish state, to the preservation of Poland from the Soviet invasion, yet he failed to create the kind of multinational commonwealth, based on principles of social justice and ethnic tolerance, to which he aspired in his youth. One may wonder how relevant was his image of such a Poland in the age of nationalism.... M.K. 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If other editors agree, it may be reasonable to move this (and other quotations included in several citations) to Wikiquote.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, this is not a quote "from a notable author" in the article about Poles. This is the quote of Pilsudski himself and this is the article about Pilsudski. His views about Poles are very notable and should be given in this article. No one argues for inserting this into Poles. --Irpen 01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, Piłsudski said and wrote a lot about many subjects. But this is not Wikiquote. Go ahead and add this quote to wikiquote:Józef Piłsudski. But it serves no purpose here, other than to offend. For the same reason, we don't cite Joseph Conrad's opinion of him ("He was the only great man to emerge on the scene during the [First World] war."). We don't quote other known sayings of him in which he was critical of Poland (there was one on rotten stone or one whether he should curse Poland after he dies, for example, or the one about why people in Poland walk on two, not four legs :>). Or perhaps the one which - loosely translated - is among my favourites: "Great nation, but its people are assholes". We don't cite him on religion ("Religion is for people without brains"); on Poland geography (baked torus) and so on.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, Pildsudski's views on religion are certainly offensive to the religious people. There is no reason to include them in the Religion article. However, if this article elaborated sufficiently on his religious views, such quote would have been warranted as it would inform the readers on Pilsudski's view on religion better than anything else. We are not writing the article with the purpose to offend anyone or to spare anyone from being offended. We are writing the articles to give the readers the best possible presentation on the article's subject. Pilsudski's low regards towards the nation he led is very notable. This is why Norman Davies gave this quote. Per your logic, Norman Davies also quoted this "with no purpose other than to offend Poles". --Irpen 02:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please find a reference which discusses Piłsudskis' attitude toward nations; than we may consider using it. Your interpretation of his quote and assertion of its notability is nothing but OR.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please formulate your request more legibly. What is that you want and why? Please also answer my question. Did Norman Davies quoted Pilsudski "with no purpose other than to offend Poles"? --Irpen 20:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pilsudski was commonly known for rough language. He often would swear (constitution-prostitution), however, his words belong to Wikiquote, not here. BTW I must admit that I am flabbergasted. Some editors seem so keen on expanding pages describing Polish politicians, while articles about such personalities as Kazys Grinius or Antanas Merkys cry for an expansion. Not to mention Emmanuil Kviring or Leonid Melnikov, who still lack articles. So get to work, dear Lithuanians or Russians/Ukrainians Tymek 22:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. In the meantime please remember that that P.P. has told us on many occasions that the respected English scholar and historian Norman Davies is quite a good source to use and quote. And furthermore, Halibutt has told us on this very talk page under the heading Pilsudski's Nationality #14 that the subject of Pilsudski's Lithuanian heritage has been discussed ad nauseum (or ad mortem defecatum as you say in Poland). If Davies tells us that Pilsudski's opinion of Poles is not flattering, but nonetheless true, and it is a referenced statement relevant to the article, it should and will stay. Furthermore the fact that Davies has written that Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture is quite relevant too. Or are we now "cherry picking" what we like out of Davies, and "dumping" what we don't like? Dr. Dan 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you appreciate my advice, Dr. Dan. Norman Davies is in my opinion a very good source, and what I said was that the quotations belong to Wikiquote (I have no doubt that Pilsudski said so). As for Pilsudski's being Lithuanian. Well, in minds of Poles brought up in the XIX century, Lithuania was not regarded a separate country, but a province of Poland, same as Masovia or Little Poland (I know, Lithuanians do not like this, but it is a fact). Mickiewicz began "Pan Tadeusz" writing "Lithuania, my fatherland", and all Polish kids know this phrase. Anyway - greetings to all Lithuanians, Belarussians and Ukrainians, our Commonwealth was a great thing. Tymek 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're not quite right here:) Nor Masovia neither Little Poland had Statutes of Lithuania that were used in Lithuania until 1831 (and in Volhynia too!), nor they have been equal partners in union of TWO nations. The Statute was evaluated as proof of distinctive nation by Tadeusz Czacki in his opus magna "O prawach...". So, well it's different story unlike Masovia.--Lokyz 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lokyz, I just wrote about mentality of Poles in the XIXth century, not about legal matters, Masovia was a random example to prove my point. Anyway - arguing with Lithuanians is the last thing I desire. Like it or not - we share a lot of history together and all we can do is cooperate to describe it. I have a lot of respect for the Lithuanian nation and one day I must go there and see all the beautiful places including Kryziu Kalnas, where I would like to genuflect and pray for all the Lithuanian patriots Tymek 16:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tymek, I understand this mentality quite well (maybe it still exists on WP in the XXIst century too, hope not), and you also need to understand that in the minds of many of Poland's partitioners in the XIX century that Poland was regarded as their own provinces (I also know that Poles do not like this either, but it is also a fact). Perhaps if Pan Tadeusz began with "Poland, my fatherland", one might not question Mickiewicz's own ethnicity. As for Pilsudski, his own statements regarding his origins, speak for themselves. And as I have mentioned before, there should be no shame that two of Poland's greatest leaders, Jogaila and Pilsudski were Lithuanians, even though both were Polonized as a result of their own choosing. And greetings back, while the Commonwealth may have been great thing, somebody made a real mess out of that great thing. I'm afraid that fact, more than anything else, cuased the Lithuanians, Belarussians, and Ukrainians to say so long when the opportunity presented itself. Dr. Dan 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is that I agree with you. Only Jogaila - he was not Polonized. To communicate with Poles, he used old Belarussian, both languages were (and still are) very similar. IMHO the Commonwealth collapsed after the Chmielnicki uprising, the Polish-Lithuanian Parliament was too late to recognize Ukrainians as equal partners. Too bad. Tymek 03:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad you agree. However, I do not feel that linguistic proficiency in a language is the only yardstick, or necessarily the most important one, as to whether someone is "ized" to another culture. But so as to not get entirely OT, the fact that the Dmowski element felt that Pilsudski was an alien amongst them, or that Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture, or that he called Poles a nation of morons, in relation to these matters, and that this information is referenced (with a very good source), suggests that the removal of this information is POV pushing. And that someone finds it to be disagreeable to them is not an acceptable reason to remove it. Also some lame assertion about ISBN numbers doesn't hold water, and the information will go back into the article as it is notable, important, and relevant. That it is unpleasant to some people's viewpoint, is not any reason to remove it. Perhaps you can restore it yourself. Dr. Dan 04:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to abandon this battle. The more I read about Pilsudski, the more overwhelming the evidence that a) he was Lithuanian, and b) his values were quite different from my own. This combination is depressing. Yes, the material belongs in here from the standpoint of presenting an accurate picture, but the motivation on my part to carry on the battle to keep it has gotten feeble.

An intelligent reader of this piece will notice its worshipful tone and be inclined to discount the article. Conflict: the desire to help make Wikipedia a good first reference for those seeking knowledge versus the not-so-wonderful desire to let this article as written speak for itself. Anyway, there's lots of other stuff to do on WP. Novickas 12:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Piłsudski's village?

On another note, I found this edit interesting - if confusing due to poor grammar: [[Piłsudski (family)|Piłsudski family]] patrimony was Lithuanian village of [[Pilsūdai]], place name which gave name to the family itself.<ref>Zinkevičius, Z. Rytų Lietuva praeityje ir dabar. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų l-kla, 1993. ISBN 5-420-01085-2 p.158 ''Original quote: J.Pilsudskis kilimo iš Lietuvos, pavardė nuo vietovės Pilsūdai, iš kur kilo Pilsudskių giminė''</ref> Could you explain what do you mean by patrimony in this context - Piłsudski's family's property? Urbanowicz mentions they owned 8,000 hectars but doesn't write about village with such a name, which I'd think he'd mention in his 2-tome bioraphy. Perhaps you could stub this village? The claim that the family name originated from a certain village is interesting (although it was not likely to be called Pilsūdai; just as Piłsudski did not call himself Juzefas Pilsudskis).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I had in mind House of Piłsudski (as example House of Gediminas) in this context. That Piłsudski family (broader sense) originated from this village. And yes the Lithuanian place name gave name to the family itself, your objections is WP:OR in this extend I am afraid.M.K. 23:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, may I suggest creating an article on Piłsudski family or House of Piłsudski, and exploring the question of his family ethnicity, culture, and origin there? PS. Are you sure you spelled the village's name right? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in any publication indexed by Google.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So, do you intend to provide better formulated sentence about this issue? M.K. 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that not everything are placed in Google print. And I agree with Novickas that such information should be presented in this article. M.K. 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pilsūdai as a place name turns up a fair amount of Google hits, if you include LT-language ones. "Pilsudai Pilsudski" turns up a few as well. Zinkevičius's notability is well established. Interesting, it looks as tho this issue has been discussed before and then faded away.

I just found this out myself, so must share. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): "Nationality - (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)" It's a great argument settler, for leads anyway, altho it seems to be applied only to the most high-profile of cases.

As far as deprecating Encyclopedia Brittanica's reference to him as a Polonized LT, along with Timothy Garton Ash's, etc., that can go in the RFC. Novickas 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pilsudski's nationality

Although user: Halibutt cannot be the ultimate source or proof as to Pilsudski's Lithuanian ethnicity, he has given us much information to that effect on this very talk page with some very convincing links (see above #14 Pilsudski's Nationality). He has explained that in Poland it has been discussed ad mortem defecatum. So taking a cue from his prodigious work recently done at Karolina Proniewska (and similar other Lithuanian-Polish personages on WP), I am re-adding the acknowledgement of the ethnicity to this great son of Lithuania, Jozef Pilsudski, to this article. It is common knowledge and besides a plethora of sources corroborate this fact, incluing the Norman Davies reference which was removed (and can be restored if need be, although I feel peppering an article with too many references cheapens it). Dr. Dan 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan, with due respect (somehow I have respect for you, as you seem to be the voice of reason). I will state again - Pilsudski considered himself a Pole above all, and like Mickiewicz, being Lithuanian was for him same as being Masovian or Kashubian. He was the product of the PLC, and I understand that Lithuanians want to have a share of this great person. However - with all his deeds he proved that being Lithuanian in the XX-th century sense meant nothing to him. He was brought up in the romantic spirit of the XIX century and one of his dreams was the return of the PLC. If you speak Polish, here is an interesting article published in the Tygodnik Wilenszczyzny - Polish weekly published in Lithuania [28]. However - stating that he was a Lithuanian statesman is an exaggeration. Here is what Encarta writes about him:

"Piłsudski, Józef Klemens (1867-1935), Polish revolutionary, independence fighter, and national hero, who became a dictator of resurrected Poland.

Born at Zułow (near present-day Vilnius, Lithuania) on December 5, 1867, Piłsudski was educated at Jagiełłonian University. During his student years he became sympathetic to the Socialist movement, which advocated the independence of Poland from Russian rule. In 1887 he was arrested on a charge of conspiring to assassinate Emperor Alexander III of Russia and, although innocent, was sentenced to five years of penal servitude in Siberia.

Following his release in 1892, he became a leader of the Polish Socialist Party; in 1894 he began to publish a secret party newspaper, The Worker. Piłsudski later organized a secret private army of about 10,000 Poles to fight for the freedom of Poland; when World War I broke out, he offered his force to the Austrians to fight the Russians. Late in 1916, the Central Powers proclaimed an independent Polish kingdom and formed a council of state, with Piłsudski as a member. When he refused, however, to order his troops to support the Central Powers against the Allies, Piłsudski was imprisoned by the Germans.

Released in November 1918, Piłsudski returned to Warsaw a national hero and proclaimed an independent Polish republic. He was immediately accepted as head of state and commander in chief of the Polish army; as such, he supervised the disarming of the remaining occupation armies of the Central Powers, and all Polish military commanders placed themselves under his command. As his aim was the restoration of the territories belonging to Poland at the time of the partition in 1772, Piłsudski came into conflict with the new Czechoslovak and Lithuanian states and with the Bolshevik regime in the newly established Soviet Union. During the Russo-Polish War of 1920, Piłsudski, who was made marshal of Poland, successfully defended Warsaw against invading Soviet armies. He resigned as chief of state in December 1922. On May 12, 1926, however, disappointed in the performance of the parliamentary system, he led a military revolt that overthrew the government and installed a regime controlled by him. Thereafter, until his death, he was the virtual dictator of Poland; he was uninterruptedly the minister of war and commander in chief of the army, and twice during this time, from 1926 to 1928 and again in 1930, he was premier of Poland. He died in Warsaw on May 12, 1935".

Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Greetings Tymek 01:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"What revolutionary?" Reply: read about bojówki, Bezdany raid, Łódź insurrection (1905), and 'Early life' chapter in our biography.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither event would qualify as "revolutions", at least not in English. Dr. Dan 03:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about revolutions, but revolutionaries. There is a slight difference. And Piłsudski is called revolutionary by many sources, starting with the Encarta article cited just above. And consider hpw Piłsudski entitled his memoires (Piłsudski, Józef, Darsie Rutherford Gillie, Joseph Pilsudski, the Memories of a Polish Revolutionary and Soldier). Here's a book ref for flavor: [29]. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Revolutionaries" create or participate in Revolutions, not train robberies and insurrections. You are right that there is a difference, but it's not as slight as you think.Dr. Dan 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tymek has it pegged just right. Moreover:

George Washington's first American ancestor, John Washington, came to the Colonies from England in 1657. But encyclopedias don't put that into their lead and call him an "English-American President of the United States."

By the same token, it's fine to mention Piłsudski's Lithuanian heritage in a subsequent paragraph. Some Lithuanians may even be pleased, despite Piłsudski's seizure of largely-Polish-inhabited areas of Lithuania — much as some Polish-Americans seem to have taken perverse pride in Ted Kaczynski's Polish heritage, apparently on the principle that "any publicity is good publicity."

But there's no need to make a Lithuanian out of a Pole. Nihil novi 02:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Tymek, let me try to put this matter into some kind of perspective. I respect you too, and perhaps you will be able to have some future influence on the camarilla that has caused so much dissension amongst editors on W.P., in this "neck of the woods": (Belarus, former Czechoslovakia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, to name a few parties involved). First and foremost, on the Pilsudski question, if you know your history, Poland was ruled from time to time by foreigners, Jogaila, Stephen Bathory, Henry III of France, Sigismund III Vasa, to name a few, and there is no shame in this fact (although there were a few incompentent losers in the mix). Calling Pilsudski a Lithuanian-Polish personage, is not a shame either, and it is a fact, even though it might offend some sensibilities. If you go to the Hitler article on WP you'll see him referred to a an "Austrian", which is true, and more correct than calling him a German (unless you are an ultra-Nationalist, expounding the virtues of Greater Germany or Miedzymorze). The other related issue is this recent attempt to "Polonize" Lithuanians (hate to use the term here) by the "modus vivendi seeking editor" at Karolina Proniewska (with a barrage of "sources" and "citations"). Although Polish Wiki calls her Lithuanian (Litewski Poeta), we are again getting what one Lithuanian contributor on WP calls the Great Polish Imperial Encyclopedia version on the nationality question. We saw it at Laurynas Gucevicius, Stanislaw Narutowicz, and any where else that "mind games" could be played. And while the Polish perspective was correct and patriotically driven, the oppostion was inventing a language in 1918 and presenting information that could not be backed up with sources "acceptable" (or with the wrong ISBN number) to the camarilla. Scholarly and respected historians like Norman Davies and Timothy Snyder have acknowleged Pilsudski origins, and do read Halibutt's aforementioned links on the matter. Please understand this is not a "bargaining chip". If you read the "edit histories" on these related matters you will better understand what the problem at hand, is. Maybe you will be able to shape and influence them in a less biased manner. I will look forward to discussing them further with you in the future. Best! Dr. Dan 02:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, most encyclopdias don't call Jerzy Waszygton a "revolutionary" either. Dr. Dan 02:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Former revolutionaries and terrorists gain respectability when they become heads of state. Nihil novi 03:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

So Nihil, I'm trying to give the Naczelnik Panstwa some respectability. Dr. Dan 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Very decent of you. Some Interbellum (Polish) compatriots of his could never forgive his "banditry" at Bezdany. Nihil novi 03:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, ultra-nationalists (from all involved countries) hated Międzymorze. And there is as of yet no Polish article on Proniewska.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad on K.P. On nationalists, I think especially, Domowski.Dr. Dan 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan, Pilsudski had a choice, he chose Poland. You wrote same about Stanislaw Narutowicz, and that should settle it all. I gotta get some Lietuvska Degtine and drink to your health. Sveikas Tymek 03:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tymek, many Lithuanians (including Pilsudski) chose Poland at half-time, at the end of the game most chose Lithuania. As to Pilsudski, you only understand him at half time. However the gates to his crypts at Wawel include the Vytis along with the White Eagle. Think about it. Look forward to having that degtine with you. Dr. Dan 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Lithuanian Vytis is known in Poland as Pogoń ("Pursuit"). It appears as a symbol in various modern Polish settings, either alone or in conjunction with the Polish White Eagle, harking back to their joint appearance in armorials of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In such settings, to Poles "Pogoń" ("Vytis") is as much a Polish as a Lithuanian symbol. Nihil novi 08:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, nice try. And I suppose the sierp i młot is as much a Polish symbol too. The Vytis represents the Lithuanian aspect, or component if you prefer, of the PLC. Somehow it was deemed important enough to be placed on the gates of Pilsudski's crypt at Wawel. If the Vytis is to Poles as much a Polish symbol as the White Eagle, this is truly news to me. Dr. Dan 13:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan, did you take the trouble to look at "Pogoń"? What do you think the Polish "Pogoń" sports clubs were trying to express in calling themselves "Pogoń" — their Lithuaniophilia? If that had been the case, why didn't they call themselves "Vytis"?

There are other examples of Poles' use of the Lithuanian "Pogoń" emblem that are not mentioned in the "Pogoń" article, such as by Polish military-related associations and their periodicals.

I think that too much is news to a contributor who represents himself as an expert on matters Polish of which he knows little. Nihil novi 03:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Or as our Russian colleagues say, "Byez vadki nye razbiryosh." Nihil novi 04:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything that didn't form a part of his self-identity isn't relevant. Gene Nygaard 04:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Dr. Dan 03:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that certain group of contributors removing person's in question ideas and remarks like a nation of morons when speaking about Poland. And "arguments" there quite silly, like that such sayings are controversial, so what? But this idea was delivered by person himself. Or another "argument" was that such direct quiting is on the brink of copyright violation (!), while one contributor posted here the whole copyrighted Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference info (look above). Another "argument" was "provided" that such "extensive" quoting is not good, but if we look at Winston Churchill article or current world's headline face Al Gore, we see extensive quoting. Interesting, M.K. 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A few short quotations are not bad - when editors agree they are useful. When they disagree, they should not be added; encyclopedic articles rarely contain quotes anyway.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well when contributors disagree, they provide such thing as arguments, currently arguments were not provided, only speculations and excuses. I repeat my self, speculation that such quotes are not acceptable because their are controversial, well almost all life of Pilsudksi was controversial, I think, so we should not have an article about it too? Hmm, 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A question. Since user MK mentioned my posting of the Encarta article about Pilsudski, I am wondering if it is acceptable to paste such info on the talk, together with the source. BTW, I have to admit that I am pleasantly surprised. I was not expecting this kind of behavior from user MK. Thank you for being so thoughtful, I appreciate it. Your politeness will save me from possible future problems. Tymek 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks dear Tymek for your kind words. I am ready to share some tips with you if you like. But lets back on topic, M.K. 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I will look forward to any tips. Still, I would like to know the answer to my question. As for his nationality - IMHO the best version would be "Pilsudski was a Polish statesman of Lithuanian descent". I emphasize - this is only my opinion. Tymek 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your new suggestion is worth to consider, M.K. 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest clarifying that by Lithuania, we mean Grand Duchy of Lithuania. We can do it either via link piping or perhaps better - by saying: "Polish statesman whose family had origins in [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]] [[szlachta|nobility]]".-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tymek's suggestion above is small footstep towards a possible consensus. Regarding clarification, well we had it sadly some contributors for some reason deleted it. M.K. 11:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, Napoleon was Italian, Stalin was Georgian, Hitler was Austrian, and Pilsudski was Lithuanian. Get over it already. And the degtine is a good idea. To all of your good health. Dr. Dan 03:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "thread" of the discussion we are having. This segment was entitled Halibutt on Pilsudski's Nationality, and his comments and links corroborating that he was indeed Lithuanian. This "inconvenient truth" has been ignored by the camarilla in our discussion. That is no surprise. Was Halibutt wrong, and are his links bogus? Has this fact been indeed been discussed in Poland ad mortem defecatum? And P.P., please do not change the title of this thread. It is precisely related to Halibutt's statements and links about Pilsudski being Lithuanian. If you are incapable of keeping up with that discussion and question, you do not have to revert the title of the name of this discussion. Yes, I brought it up. And the matter is unresolved as to whether Halibutt's information and links from the above (#14 Pilsudski's Nationality) on this talk page are correct and if the the links provide valid information. The rest is interesting but OT, in regards to Halibutt's assertions. Dr. Dan 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are excerpts from yet another biography of Pilsudski: Andrzej Garlicki, Jozef Pilsudski. 1867-1935. Scolar Press, 1995, ISBN. 1859280188, p.2: "Pilsudski was born on 5 December 1867 into a family of landed Polish gentry at Zulow. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't care for my excerpt from Norman Davies's work, stating that "Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture". Have you changed your opinion of Davies' qualifications or authority as a reliable English source on Wikipedia? If so, I hope it wasn't because of my pointing out that Davies quoted Pilsudski as having once said that "Poland was a nation of morons". And what was your basis for removing legitimately sourced material. Hopefully not WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. As I remember you were dissatisfied with the ISBN number, or something like that. Do you think that Andrzej Garlicki is a better English source as opposed to Norman Davies? Dr. Dan 04:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fedak

Was Stefan Fedak, the attempted assassin, actually a member of the OUN? My sources say he was just a student. Ostap 23:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I double checked Urbankowski; he clearly states that Stefan Fedak was a member of OUN. Btw, Polish wiki has an article on pl:Ukraiński zamach na Józefa Piłsudskiego, and both Polish and Ukrainian have an article on pl:Stepan Fedak (wojskowy)/uk:Федак-Смок Степан.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just asking. The book by Hrushevsky and edited by someone else A History of Ukraine only calls him a student. I guess that doesn't mean he wasn't a member though, maybe I didn't look hard enough. Thanks for double checking. Ostap 01:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, considering dates of creation, Fedak was likely a member of Ukrainian Military Organization, not OUN.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make more sense, I am quite sure that the OUN was formed in 1929. I can't believe I missed that earlier. Thank you Piotus for clearing it up. Ostap 05:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Np. Of course Fedak most likely joined OUN later, when UMO was taken over by it. But in 1921 indeed there was simply no OUN.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty sure he was in the OUN later. Thanks, one last question. Are you sure he was part of the UVO and not one of the other founding members of the OUN? Is it possible he was in one of the various nationalist student organizations that merged into OUN? I am away from any good sources, so I rely on you. Thanks, Ostap 05:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues

As I have stated previously, I am looking forward to this article appearing as a featured article. However the nationality issue has not been resolved, and other referenced information has been arbitralily removed without any basis other than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. These issues must be resolved first. Dr. Dan 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dan, please elaborate the problem with the article's neutrality. The ethnicity issue is addressed in the first paragraph of the Early Life section: He was born into the szlachta (noble) Piłsudski family, who cherished Polish patriotic traditions;[3][4] a family that has been characterized either as Polish[5] or as Polonized-Lithuanian.[6] [a]. If you have a better solution for the problem please discuss it here. I am removing the neutrality tag as I do not see the discussion warrants it. Alex Bakharev 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex, look in Recent referenced information removal of Oct. 10th and below there are listed problems which are not solved at all. And there is no need to repeat a dozen times the same problems. I agree that this article have neutrality problems. M.K. 13:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alex the ethnicity issue is not the problem. That Pilsudski called himself a Lithuanian "of Polish culture", has been well established by scholars like Norman Davies, and more importantly by Pilsudski himself on many occaisions. Whether his mother called him "Juozukas" or even "Ziutek", is not what the neutrality issue is about. It is about whether the article in its present state is a balanced one, and if sourced and referenced material by historians and scholars can be removed on a whim because of the unacceptable principle of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Can't explain it more simply than that. Dr. Dan 05:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox problems

There are some logical problems with the infobox which we may want to address. First of all, the infobox refers to his period in power in 1918-1922 when Piłsudski was the Naczelnik państwa - despite the fact that his influence, if unofficial, was much greater during the period after May coup in 1926. I'd suggest to solve it by moving preceeded/succeed by above the prime minister line, and adding dates to all of the posts. At least that way the reader of the infobox will see that Piłsudski held offices in years others than 1918-1922.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

New York Times excerpts

Some of the details here are probably too specific for this article, but interesting nonetheless:

"Hitler Sends Regrets", May 13, 1935, pg. 6.
"Deeply moved by the news of Marshal Pilsudski's demise, I express to your excellency [Moscicki] and the Polish Government the most sincere condolences of myself and the Reich Government.
"Poland loses in the deceased Marshal the creator of its new state and truest son. The German nation joins the Polish nation in mourning the death of this great patriot who by his comprehending cooperation with Germany has done not only a great service to both countries but in addition has contributed most valuably to the pacification of Europe."

"Marshal Pilsudski Dies; Warsaw Closely Guarded", May 13, 1935, pg. 1.
Warsaw, May 12 - Marshal Joseph Pilsudski died here at 8:35 o'clock tonight from cancer of the stomach and liver, which had caused hemorrhages yesterday. Five physicians ...were at the Marshal's bedside. Others at the bedside when the Marshal died were a priest and Mme. Alexandra Pilsudski. Mr. [Anthony] Eden, British Lord Privy Seal, was his last foreign visitor six weeks ago. He had been unconscious for some time before his death.
Music in all restaurants and dance halls was stopped tonight. Police reserves appeared on the empty streets, and powerful motor cars rushed from Belvedere Palace to the President's palace and back. The general public did not know of the death until after midnight,[p. 6] when an announcement was made over the radio.

"Rome Expresses Shock", May 13, 1935, pg. 6.
Pilsudski's death came as a shock to Italian political circles tonight. Under his regime Italian relations with Poland had been uniformly good. Marshal Pilsudski was regarded by Fascists as personifying a strong government similar to that of Premier Mussolini.

"U.S. Condolences Sent to Poland", May 14, 1935, pg. 4.
Cordell Hull to Josef Beck:
"I have learned with distress of the death of Marshal Josef Pilsudski and I offer Your Excellency the sincere condolences of the government and people of the United States. We in America have always had a particular admiration for the high qualities which enabled Marshal Pilsudski to labor so persistently and so successfully for the independence of his country. We share your grief that his career is ended."

"Reich in Mourning for Polish Ally", May 14, 1935, pg. 5.
Germany today officially mourned Marshal Joseph Pilsudski as a great patriot and the father of his country, but it grieved even more for the statesman who established friendly relations between Poland and Germany and was depended upon to keep them friendly despite all efforts to draw Poland into anti-German combinations.
The death of the Marshal was observed therefore as an event of special concern to Germany. Flags flew at half-staff from all official buildings. Chancellor Hitler sent a warmly-worded telegram of condolence last night to President Ignaz Moscicki of Poland and General Hermann Wilhelm Goering, Air Minister, sent similar telegrams to the President, Foreign Minister and Marshal Pilsudski's widow today.
Behind the condolences, however, there were concerns as to what the Marshal's death might mean to Germany's already precarious international position. In official quarters there never were any illusions about the Marshal's real view, which saw only Poland's interest and in that interest called for a "showdown" with Germany, even at the risk of war, shortly after Chancellor Hitler came to power.

"All Warsaw Pays Honor to Pilsudski", May 15, 1935, pg. 17.
The Cardinal Archbishop in Cracow, Prince Sapieha, was Pilsudski's mortal enemy until a year or so ago. That was the time the Marshal held a great review on the Cracow plain of the cavalry regiments he had built up. At its close he went in state to lay a wreath upon the tomb of Jan Sobiesky. There in the Cathedral crypt he made peace with the Cardinal and arranged with him where his body should lie. ... The funeral casket is being made of wood and silver with the upper part of glass, revealing the had and shoulders. Seventy kilograms of silver are being used for this coffin.

"Pilsudski Cortege Viewed by 500,000", May 16, 1935, pg. 13.
Warsaw, May 15 - Through silent thousands of his fellow-countrymen massed twenty deep along three miles of Warsaw's wide avenues, Josef Pilsudski, Poland's creator and first citizen, began after dusk tonight the first stage of his journey ... to Cracow. Warsaw is a city of 1,250,000 souls, yet it is conservative to estimate that 500,000 persons gathered to see his passing. The cortège that escorted the Marshal's body to the cathedral was composed largely of soldiers. But priests and nuns, hundreds of them, were [also] in it. The Cardinal Archbishop walked before the coffin, the President and Premier led the Cabinet behind it.

"Huge Crowds View Pilsudski in Death", May 17, 1935, pg. 13.
At 12:30 o'clock this morning after the people of Warsaw had been streaming all day past the body of Marshal Pilsudski, it became necessary to close the cathedral where he lay in state. There were something like 150,000 persons waiting in the rain in long queues along all the streets leading from the neighboring square in every direction for many blocks. It was impossible that all could even reach the cathedral before daybreak...

"Roosevelt Sends Condolence", May 18, 1935, p. 4.
May 17, to Moscicki:
"I extend to your excellency and the Polish people my sincere condolences on the death of your distinguished statesman and soldier, Marshal Pilsudski, whose ability and attainments won for him the high regard of the American people."

"Hitler at Memorial Mass", May 19, 1935, p. 22.
Berlin, May 18 - Virtually the entire cabinet, headed by Reichsfuehrer Adolf Hitler, attended a requiem mass for the late Marshal Pilsudski at the Catholic Cathedral today in a demonstration of friendship to Poland.

"Polish Liberator Rests among Kings", May 19, 1935, p. 22.
A procession of 150,000 persons, including 1,000 priests, all the army's regimental flags, high dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church and special envoys from foreign lands escorted the Marshal's body from the railway station to the cathedral this morning. Prince Sapieha celenrated the pontifical mass. Moscicki previously had eulogized him, speaking from the cathedral steps as the coffin rested there. It is estimated that 2,000,000 persons saw the train pass [during the previous night]. General Goering, the official German representative at the funeral, will proceed to Warsaw to confer with Poland's new military leaders, especially General Eduard Rydz-Smigly. Biruitorul 04:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues Again

Let me start with the warning not to remove the neutrality tag until these matters are resolved. First Pilsudski was born in the Lithuanian village of Zalavas. As to whether the Polish toponyms of Lithuanian geographical entities needs to be added to the English Wikipedia, can also be discussed right here and now. This has nothing to do with a skewed interpretation of WP:NCGN. As to providing citations for all removed referenced material, such as Pilsudki considered Poland to be a nation of morons, they can be re-introduced if you insist. As a concession, I've left it out for now. Plus, I'm against peppering an article with citations over and over and over again. That will be your choice. And according to Piotr Koniecncy aka Prokonsul Piotrus' link, Pilsudski actually used the term "idiots" instead of "morons". Dr. Dan (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just compromise and say "Józef Piłsudski was born in 1867, in the village of Zalavas, at that time part of the Russian Empire (now in Lithuania)." That seems factual and to the point. If the reader has further interest in the city, he/she can go the that article. I agree with you that Polish toponyms are not needed in this case. That same issue with Russian names in Ukraine related articles is very annoying. But thats just my opinion, and I am only trying to help. Regards, Ostap (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Nihil novi (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Territories of GDL, particularly near Wilno, were often inhabited by Poles or even Belorusians. To claim a village was inhabited by Lithuanians - while more likely than not - needs a reference. PS. Piłsudski, as a noble, was born in his family mansion - and not in some peasant hut. I see no reason why the note on his family's mansion is being removed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In his latter career, Piłsudski became famous for using disparaging expressions for entities that he disapproved of, and spoke of the Sejm in scatological terms that, apart from the challenges posed to the translator, do not readily bear repetition on Wikipedia. Calling a nation "idiots" would have been rather mild for him. Piłsudski was clearly speaking out of vexation at groups and individuals that he regarded as venal or short-sighted; quoting such pronouncements on Wikipedia is probably superfluous, as I imagine it would be to cite some of the more colorful derogatory comments that Richard Nixon clandestinely recorded on tape in his White House. Nihil novi (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I pointed many other quotations he made, some quite negative, some quite positive, above. Interestingly, certain editors seem really insistent on adding this particular quote, and no other. I really wonder, why... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Quit wondering why Pilsudski thought Poles were morons or idiots. We can't ask him. Back to the topic, sure, these Poles migrated to Lithuania? I'm not making any claims about "inhabitants", or linguistics either. I'm refering to simple geography. Zalavas, or by any other name, was in Lithuania then, and is in Lithuania today. Quite simple. The rest is POV and is contributing to the article remaining in Non-Neutral limbo. As for Ostap's suggestions, yes they are reasonable, but any compromises must take all of the parties' opinions and edits into consideration. Other than the geographical dispute, there remains the nationality dispute. Two very established and respected English speaking scholars, Norman Davies and Timothy Snyder have concluded that Pilsudski was Polish-Lithuanian and have written as much in their prodigious writings. The "prokonsul" has repeatedly used their efforts when it suits his purposes, yet relegates their efforts aside when he finds them to be objectionable or "offensive" to him. Fortunately that is not how Wikipedia operates. This must be reviewed and a resolution must be implemented before the article can be placed as a featured article. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

AS far as simple historical geography goes, this was a Russian village - part of Russian Empire, Vilna Gubernya. Today it is of course Lithuanian. But since it was first mentioned (and likely founded) in the 17th century, when it was part of the PLC, the proper historical adjective would be Polish - just as villages near Warssa are not commonly called Masovian, or those around Kraków, Little Polish. Nonetheless to avoid confusion, per comments of other editors, we should not use adjectives which today mean something quite different than in the past.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

More nonsense? According to this argument, Pilsudski is neither Polish or Lithuanian, but Russian, and the entire article would have to reflect this. But then again your entire group has wasted immense resources and time trying to make Lithuania a "province" of Poland on English Wikipedia, and to make any Lithuanian associated with Poland to be either Polish or "Polish-Lithuanian". With the exception of Pilsudski of course. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I never was any good at dispute resolution... I see your point, why not "born in Zalavas, Lithuania (then RE)?" That would be factual, and certainly wouldn't imply Polish nationality. I have no opinion or knowledge about his nationality, just want to clear up his birthplace. Ostap (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Almost all sources - and common sense - agree that Piłsudski was Polish. So attempts to push an undue point of view that he wasn't should not be endorsed easily. Besides, in 19th century there was no political entity known as Lithuania.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Who was talking about a "political entity"? The scholars Norman Davies and Timothy Snyder both call Pilsudski a Polish-Lithuanian. Is your contrary "opinion" qualified to override two English speaking, and certainly neutral and respected historians? Pilsudski and his parents were born in Lithuania. His mother died and was buried there. If Zalavas was not in Lithuania, and the people born there were not Lithuanians, one would have to conclude that they were Russian (according to your POV) because it was part of the Russian Empire. The reason it was by definition an Empire, was because it was comprised of many different nationalities, (as was the Soviet Union) and not all of its inhabitants were Russians. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, until you agree to allow this article to resemble a neutral, fair, and encyclopedic type of an article, the matter needs to be reviewed and your biased edits and reverts, need to be also reviewed. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Until you understand that Lithuanishness of Piłsudski is different from Lithuanishness of modern ethnic Lithuanians, your edits will not be helpful. Oh, and do read WP:CITE.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference perfectly. Neither I, nor Norman Davies, or Timothy Snyder call him a Polish-Lithuanian because we equate modern Lithuania with the Lithuania he was born in. Nonetheless both are Lithuania inspite of many differences. Greenland in AD 984 is not the same as it is today either, but it is still Greenland. Is that clear? I'm also sure Norman Davies' statement that "Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture" doesn't require you to interpret it's meaning. Every reader can determine that for themselves. As for WP:CITE and WP:NEUTRALITY you have violated both the spirit and letter of the rules on both with your edits and your repeated reverts, causing the article to need closer scrutiny. That's O.K. with me. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is another source (a Ukrainian one) in addition to those cited by Dan:

The first of many paradoxes that followed Josef Pilsudski all his life, and even after his death, is that the future refounder of the Polish state was not really a... Pole. Similarly to Adam Mickiewicz he was a Litvin. Litvin is not exactly a Lithuanian in a modern sense of this word. It is a Szlachticz of Lithuanian or Belarusian origin from the GDL, first independent and later united with the Polish kingdom into Rzeczpospolita.

Oleksa Pidlutskyi "Postati XX stolittia", (Figures of the 20th century), ISBN 9668290011, Chapter "Józef Piłsudski: The Chief who Created Himself a State". --Irpen (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. And the article recognizes this, with both of the current notes addressing this issue. I like the above quote from Oleksa (nomen omen Pidlutskyi); do we want to add it to link to litvin? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen, and I agree with P.K. aka P.P., that the quote is quite true. Is it correct that "Litvin" (Cyrillic of course) in Ukrainian means Lithuanian, just as "Litwin" is the Polish word for Lithuanian? I think that they are both pronounced similiarly too. Irpen, would that be correct? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and a cognate of "Litvin" and "Litwin" is "Litvak" ("Lithuanian Jew"). What's your point? Nihil novi (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Nihil. Let's leave the cognates out of my question to Irpen. The question was directed to him, and please allow him to answer it. If he's too busy at the moment, I can wait a bit. Please be patient, and I will make my point at that time. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Regarding this addition: it has to be balanced by a 'praise' or similar section to be neutral. Another solution is to split it off to a subarticle. This seems preferable as it partially repeats stuff mentioned elsewhere in this article and is a common practice on Wikipedia. Of course if split the most interesting parts should be kept and merged into the current article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you please draw up a "Praise" section? Nihil novi (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe criticism and praise should be incorporated into existing article structure, as they for the most part already were before this section was added.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. Why not, then, simply cannibalize this new "Criticism" section for any usable information and sources, then close this section? Nihil novi (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Simply, because I didn't have time for that yet. Perhaps you could do it? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a technical note: Several of the links in the references are messed up, while some of the refs are not in standard, complete form. I fixed a couple of those refs (not a totally trivial task, especially since I was fighting against constant edit conflicts!), but more needs to be done, especially since this is being considered for FA. Cheers— Turgidson (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done and done.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Antanas Smetona article doesn't contain any Criticism section. Xx236 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, but please remember the article about pudding doesn't have one either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dan (talk • contribs)

On Fascism

As to whether or not Pilsudski was a "fascist" or not, let me say if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Certainly, he was not an adherent of Benito Mussolini's party, but that isn't how the term fascist is defined in most dictionaries (certainly not exclusively) today. The article acknowledges that he was a dictator, that he removed a democratically elected government with military force, ruled in an authoritarian manner, and incarcerated political opponents into "work" camps. I don't remember ever seeing him photographed in civilian clothes (even in private family photos), although that observation is not evidence. Since we know he wasn't a democrat, or a communist/socialist, how should we characterize his political ideology and activities? Altogether it seems rather akin to fascism. No? Dr. Dan 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See my explanation here. He was a dicator, and his government was quite authoritarian. He was not a facist, as not each dictator is a facist. There is enough scholarly ref discussing this in detail, per diffs in my linked post.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I re-read your explanation for the third time. This "opinion" from your source, is interesting but I'm afraid way off the mark from virtually every other interpretation of history. So Franco's Spain was not Fascist too? Anyway, rather than uselessly debate the issue with you, perhaps you'd be so kind and answer my question. How should we characterize his political ideology? Dr. Dan 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Piłsudski was a Polish original. If we must seek comparisons, in many ways he was a 20th-century Polish Oliver Cromwell. Was Cromwell a fascist? Nihil novi 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What does Cromwell have to do with my question? Or Julius Caesar or Rafael Leonidas Trujillo y Molina? How should we characterize Pilsudski's ideology? Dr. Dan 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

He was a pragmatist with a strong aversion to mendacity and corruption in politics; who contributed substantially to the restoration of his country's independence; and who sought to bolster its chances of survival by creating a Central European federation (Międzymorze) and by divesting the Russian Empire and Soviet Union of their non-Russian holdings (his Prometheist program). In conceiving the latter two programs, and in anticipating correctly the general course of an impending World War I, he showed himself a major political visionary. Nihil novi 23:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Soviet academicians Piłsudski was a fascist. Soviet academicians are always right and when they aren't right they are more right. Xx236 07:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence says Matthew N. Lyons [30]. According to this definition Piłsudzki was a long way from fascism.Xx236 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that Matthew N. Lyons is a nice man. Maybe even nicer than "Soviet academicians" (what do they know, how could they they ever compare themselves to Piŀsudzki (sic) cult of personality promulgators?). However, I hardly think that even Lyons would consider himself the final arbiter over who is or isn't a fascist. Dr. Dan 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the definition of fascsm by Lyons, write your one. Xx236 (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean my own one (definition)? I'd rather leave the writing of "original research" to you. Btw, I did take offense to your denigrating Soviet Academicians. I am by no means an apologist for the Soviet Union, or the United States (both nations have their own history to deal with). But the accomplishments of the Soviet Union were on many occassions exemplary, and your insult to Soviet Academicians was uncalled for. I read all "Academicians" through an objective "filter". Try doing it with Polish Academicians, especially when dealing with Pilsudski cult of personality promugators. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I have a feeling that some how neither Mussolini or Hitler expressed condolences or sent a delegation to the funeral of Kirov a half a year earlier. Dr. Dan 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record; here Davies calls P. a "left-wing authoritarian" (and specifically distinguishes him from fascist leaders).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, put it into the article then. I have no objection to using Norman Davies' as a source or reference in this article. As long as it's not done selectively. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. It's a good quote. Nihil novi (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Franco's Spain

• The Falange article doesn't define Falange as fascist and this isn't the right place to discuss if it is fascist.
• In April 1937, Franco managed to fuse the ideologically incompatible national-syndicalist Falange and the Carlist monarchist parties under a single-party under his rule (from Francisco Franco).

Xx236 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Xx236..."and this isn't the right place to discuss if it is fascist." So why are you discussing it then? I think if you are trying to prove that Pilsudski wasn't a fascist, you should leave out any comment that Franco and the Falange were not fascist, if you are serious. Like I said earlier, "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck". An answer, an "objective" answer to my question regarding Pilsudski's ideology, is still welcome. Dr. Dan 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Go to Falange and Francisco Franco to prove they were fascist.Xx236 08:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a tad busy right now, Xx236, but when I have time I'll go to the Mussolini article and try to prove he was a fascist, first. I hope I meet less resistance, and better arguments, if and when I do. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, proving that white is white goes much easier on Wiki than proving that black is white. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right about that. Unfortunately for me, you have a lot more time to do things like that, than I have. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I seriously hope that you do not think Franco and the Falange were not fascist too. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you add the note about facism to article about F and F, and we will see how it goes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Juozukas aka Wictor

Sorry that I can't edit further tonight. I am throwing a Birthday Party in commemoration of the great man, Pilsudski's 140th birthday, replete with the Vytis and Orzeł Biały (both dear to him, and on his tomb) hanging prominently. Wish many of you could join me. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

• Pilsudksi's "dream of federation" was perceived by Poland's neighbors as imperialism. Think about it.

• This is noted here (the plan was met by opposition from most of the intended members – who refused to compromise on their hard fought autonomy - as well as from the Allied powers) and discussed in detail in Międzymorze article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• The military venture into the Ukraine as far as Kiev - very controversial idea. Mentioned by Edward Hallett Carr as a crucial issue in Poland's fate during and after WWII; that mention was deleted.

• And Edgar Vincent, 1st Viscount D'Abernon wrote Pilsudski has saved Western civilizations from the Bolshevik invasion. Details controversy over the Kiev Offensive (1920) and Polish-Soviet War belong in those articles. That Soviets and Germans wanted to erase Poland from the map - as it was recreated from their former possessions - is obvious.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• One of Poland's interwar problems, stemming from its territorial gains beyond what was approved by the Allies, was the inclusion of populations that were not ethnically Polish. They needed a lot of policing. Mentioned as extremist opposition only.

• The article mentions that the ethnic minorities formed almost a third of the Second Republic's population and discusses the deteriorating situation after his death. Pilsudski's role is discussed; he was a stabilizing factor.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• His controversial seizure of Vilnius, not discussed.

  Added a link to Żeligowski's Mutiny.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Opposition by archbishop, later cardinal, to his burial in cathedral. Deleted.

• Minor issue, P. had many opponents (and supporters); if we wanted to mention every one and where they agreed or disagreed with P. this would be a book, not an article. It was moved to the article about the cardinal, Adam Stefan Sapieha.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Ethnicity. Brittanica's description of P. as Polonized Lithuanian, rather than Polish-Lithuanian, was deleted.

• There are many descriptions of P. ethnicity; most of them simply mention he was Polish. The Lithuanian aspect is discussed in 'early life' and a dedicated note, Britannica was removed as we have better (scholarly books) references.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Criticism. Had Piotrus' edit summary stated that the section was being merged, I would not have reverted, nor, I presume, would Irpen. In any case no consensus was reached about this action. This is not what I would call a collaborative workover of an FAC article.

• My edit summary read: "incorporate recent edits into existing framework". I thought it was clear enough.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Characterization of his government - very brief as it stands. There is a lot of material to sift through; variously described as a military dictatorship, fascist, quasi-fascist, authoritarian, etc. This is difficult, I realize, and will require a lot of co-operative discussion. But it has been done at other articles.

• And all of it belongs in the sanacja article, which should certainly be expanded.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Legacy. As mentioned on the FAC page, this is a hot issue.

• So? It seems covered well in the current section, which incorporates the criticism refs you added.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Possible overuse of non-critical Polish sources, esp. Urbanowski, apart from those necessary for details.

• Do you have a review that would describe Urbanowski's work as 'non-critical'? Or more up to the point, are there any parts of the current article, referenced with U., that you think are not-neutral and should be examined more closely? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In the course of writing this I was interrupted by three non-trivial phone calls. I'm relying on the community here to accept my presentation of the POV issues as serious, without accompanying article edits, references, and diffs. These may or may not show up in the near future. Someone else may carry on. As Dr. Dan has said, it can wait. Novickas (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilsudksi's "dream of federation" was perceived by Poland's neighbors as imperialism. Think about it.

Piłsudski was right, separated coutries survived till 1939. Prove that the Polish imperialsm was worse than the Soviet and German freedom.Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Playing's devil advocate, that Poland's neighbors were wrong doesn't change the factual accuracy of the above statement (assumuing it can be referenced, the term imperialism is not neutral, but I would think it shouldn't be that far off from what they were thinking).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved POV Issues

It would be very simple to imperiously wave one's hand over these issues and bat them away, one by one, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus (like proconsuls might have done long ago), but the real world doesn't work that way. On the issue of Pilsudski's nationality, we have Norman Davies stating that he was a Polish-Lithuanian, and Timothy Snyder stating that he was a Polish-Lithuanian, and Encyclopedia Britannica stating that he was a Polish-Lithuanian. But this seems to be offensive to you. Perhaps user: Halibutt's very contributions on the subject on this talk page might help you to focus better (like a laser even) on this question, at least on the English WP article's information on this subject. So to save you the trouble of scrolling upwards to # 14 "Pilsudski's Nationality", let me give you, and any others interested in his input, what Halibutt told us. (Disclaimer: any of Halibutt's grammatical errors were not corrected by Dr. Dan, the side remarks in parentheses are Dr. Dan's. The parenthecized remarks concerning Milosz, Mickiewicz, etc., are Halibutt's)

• Halibutt: Pilsudski stated himself that he was Lithuanian.

• Halibutt: As to Pilsudski claiming he was Lithuanian, there's a lot of such remarks in his works.

• Halibutt: Once he (Pilsudski presumably) said that Lithuanian is the best version of a Pole. On other ocassions he stated Poland is like a donut - empty in the middle (Katowice maybe, nah more like Lodz?) and sweet along the rims.

• Halibutt: Imagine the faces of Dmowski's nationalists when he stated he's (again presumably Pilsudski), Lithuanian in the Polish Sejm.

• Halibutt: Almost any biographical note mentions he was Polish-Lithuanian "(much like Czeslaw Milosz, Adam Mickiewicz, and many, many, more people)".

Now I'm not saying that user:Halibutt's remarks are the bottom line, or even acceptable references, but if you do scroll up, you'll find that he earlier provided us with some very relevant links to back up his assertions, and I also know that you respect his opinion and appreciate his contributions to WP. A simple acknowledgement of Pilsudski being Polish-Lithuanian (in those words instead of dilly-dallying with some semantical game playing), will move the article along in the right direction. Please give consideration to all of the above infomation, because this factual and sourced information is going back into the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It was discussed above, and as a result we have added a note on his nationality to the article. Not to reiterate old discussions ad naueseum, there are many more sources which claim that P. was only Polish than Polish-Lithuanian. Compare Britannica with Columbia and Encarta. Note that even Britannica doesn't call him Lithuanian in their lead ([31]). As confusing as Britannica can be, he is also called just "Polish" here. Is it a simplification? Of course. Do we discuss it in the article? Yes. So what's the problem? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For starts, the problem is that you, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, selectively use sources like Norman Davies when it suits your POV, and reject them when it does not. Interestingly you chose not to address any other of the comments. What about Halibutt's comments and links, for example. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Selective quoting indeed. I wonder how long one has to search for those few works which while discussing P. nationality use the adjective Lithuanian; after all as can be easily seen most don't. Nonetheless I agree that those few certainly make a valid point, and this is why we go into the details of his ethnicity in a dedicated note. Nonetheless in majority of context Davies (and practically everyone else writing about P.) use the adjective Polish. For example in his work on history of Europe, here (p.925), he uses only the adjective "Polish". And when he goes into those details in God's Playground, he writes (p.40) He was born in Lithuania, and lived most of his early life in Wilno. He was the second son of an old Polish family. Since this was discussed again and again, and since you have resolved to more personal attacks, accusing me of "selective quoting" and such (instead, for example, of presenting your own arguments backed by references), it's EOT for me. PS. One final note: Lithuanian Wikipedia's article states that he was Polish (Lenkijos), not Polish-Lithuanian (Lenkijos-Lietuvos), too. There is something about being more holy than the Pope, you know...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Get serious, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Have we gotten to so low a nadir that any dissagreement with you, is construed by you to be "more personal attacks"? Yes, you have used "selective quoting" in your use of the historian Norman Davies, and have done so often. Regarding your remark, instead of presenting your own arguments backed by references: Ironically, some of the edits and contributions of mine that were reverted by you, were in fact referenced with Davies as the source. Get to work on this article and stop playing games. It seems your new efforts at the Żeligowski Mutiny article demonstate that you are hell-bent in creating more dissension and ill will between editors, by more non-neutral and biased editing. Please attempt to be more compromising and co-operative. Please desist from accusing people of making personal attacks, when there aren't any. I have to deal with enough of this kind of "thought" processes and behavior at the clinic where I work, without having to deal with it here on WP. As for the remark, "There is something about being more holy than the Pope, you know", I have no doubt that you believe you have great expertise on the Papacy, on proconsuls, and similar matters. Actually I beginning to wonder why you didn't choose, "Pontifex Maximus", for your sobriquet instead of "Prokonsul". Dr. Dan (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Are the last two sentences a forced attempt at humor, or merely more baiting and ad-hominem attack? Nihil novi (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which one of us are you addressing? I'm not sure because, you N.N., often jump into to these discussions with a side comment. Rarely do they address any substantive part of the discussion either. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Piłsudski as seen in Lithuania

I wonder if we should add a little more about it. A few day ago a Lithuanian newspaper ("Veidas") published a rather critical piece stating that "Piłsudski was the chief opponent of Lithuanian independence" (here are Polish media articles discussing this publication: [32], [33]; I am sure one of our Lithuanian collegues can link the original L. piece); the article further piles on Piłsudski that he was "poorly educated... anti-social... arrogant"... "hated democracy"..."damaged Lithuania"). Interestingly, two years ago that same newspaper published a much more moderate piece (discussed here and translated into Polish here) by Jonas Rudokas on 25 08 2005 that argued that Piłsudski "defended both Poland and Lithuanian from Soviet domination". What's interesting is that such a view is supported by quite a few scholars arguing that Piłsudski's actions in fact guaranteed Lithuanian's independence: in addition to Polish media (ex. [34]) see Polish historian Piotr Łossowski in his Konflikt polsko-litewski... (p.132-133), but also Lithuanian historian Antanas Ruksa (Kovos del Lietuvos nepriklausomybes, t.3, p.417) or (also Lithuanian?) Alfred E. Senn (Lietuvos valstybes... p. 163). Senn wrote: If the Poles didn't stop the Soviet attack, Lithuania would fell to the Soviets... Polish victory costs the Lithuanians the city of Wilno, but saved Lithuania itself. Ruksa wrote: In summer 1920 Russia was working on a communist revolution in Lithuania... From this disaster Lithuania was saved by the miracle at Vistula. I do wonder if latest Veidas editorial stance represents the minority or current majority of Lithuanian POV. How is P. portrayed in modern Lithuanian publications? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)