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)

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)

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)

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!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Halibutt and 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)