Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:45, 25 November 2007

Józef Piłsudski

An important figure in interwar Polish and European history. Over the past year I have verified all facts with a two-part biography and expanded the article. GA since June 7, 2006. MILHIST A-class since October 3, 2006. PS. See here for old (July 10, 2006) FAC nom.. Comments appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this article has some image copyright issues. According to the image page, Image:Herb Piłsudski.PNG is a copyvio because it's over 150×150, but that's easily fixed by reducing the image. Image:Pilsudski in Bristol.jpg is more complex. It says it was taken in July 1923 and claims life+70. However, there is no indication of who took the photo, let alone when he died. There are some other images that have a similar uncertainty. There's a possibility of {{PD-Poland}}, although the image would still (probably) be considered copyright in the US, which leaves it still non-free. Pagrashtak 20:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Herb Piłsudski.PNG is not a copyvio, since the permission allows us to use larger images if they were upload before certain date (which this image passes). I am not sure what to do with the other image, though. We could perhaps remove it - we have enough images in the article to lose one or two photos without any pain.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The larger images are allowed if uploaded before 11 Nov 2005, but this image was uploaded 17 Feb 2007. Am I missing something? Pagrashtak 05:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Mathiasrex. Sorry, I misread the date. Can you upload the low-res variant instead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well written and references, includes everything one should find in a featured article. I fully support this nomination. JRWalko 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well referenced, nicely written. I believe we could fix the photo formatting to use standard thumb parameter instead of fixed width, but that's a minor issue. //Halibu tt 09:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Hali, well referenced, nicely written, just like your similarly well referenced, nicely written article about Zalavas. (please look at my comment on its talk page). Dr. Dan 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well referenced, well written, and well formatted. Jay32183 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Strong oppose . Article have potential to be FA but not as current version. Problems which faces current version are listed on talk. I will briefly point out some of them. First of all there was suggestion to implement in the article's lead formulation Lithuanian descent, this was not addressed. About Pilsudski's young days - some fact also missing, like that his family called him under his Lithuanian name Juozukas rather then Józef. In my opinion this is more important then saga how he lost his teeth. Other problems: article lacks person in question own words and stated views presentation. For instance why such strong strong statment like Piłsudski was aware that the Bolsheviks were not friends of independent Poland, and that war with them was inevitable. not present with own Pilsudski's words for it, rather then historians interpretation and speculations. Examples can be found like in Winston Churchill article, there his views, criticism presented by his words. There was attempt to fix this problem, for instance presenting his view about Poland as a nation of morons (as cited in N. Davies; Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland.p.139), but it was removed under inconclusive arguments. Also article lacks critical assessment and information, for instance we have an information that Pilsudski believed in the rule of strong hand, while original statment provides that Pilsudski believed that the world was ruled by brute force, and that fundamental changes could only be obtained, or essential interests defended, by the willingness to use violence, terror, and military power. So we have and contributors' personal interpretation with it (in the rule of strong hand). In other words article should present source's information rather then its interpretation by editors. Other points - Death section should be expanded as it was important development not only to his followers but also to his enemies, etc. If I remember correctly, initially was prohibition to entomb him in Wawel. Moving to other problems, there is and weaseling problems like Edward Rydz-Śmigły was seen by some as Piłsudski's successor etc. so article have to be greatly improved. M.K. 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)P.S. Reasonable time passed and no improvement conducted, I changed my previuos opinion to strong oppose also due to others contributors raised concerns. M.K. (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian descent is mentioned in lead family with traditions dating back to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
That "his family called him under his Lithuanian name Juozukas rather then Józef" is news by me, no such argument was made on talk or in article, no refs to back it up were presented and I have not read anything like this in the biographies I have read.
Piłsudski was aware that the Bolsheviks were not friends of independent Poland, and that war with them was inevitable. This is a referenced statement. Further, Urbanowski states clearly this is based on Piłsudski's own words - see Piłsudski Józef, Pisma zbiorowe: wydanie prac dotychczas drukiem ogłoszonych, tome VII, p.147. Unfortunatly I don't have this publication at hand to quote Piłsudski, but verifiable claim by a reliable historian seems to agree with our policies
As the discussion at article's talk page shown, the quote is 1) offensive 2) out of context. For interested editors, the full speech in which he uses the quote that Poland is a nation of morons is here; briefly, Piłsudski is criticizing (Polish) politicians, and to argue that he thought all Poles are morons is incorrect - and again, offensive. It is further surprising that certain editors push to have this quote included, but ignore a bunch of other quotes where Piłsudski made positive comments about Poles, or positive or negative comments about Lithuanians, Russians, French, British, Germans, the West, particular regions of Poland, politicians, communists, soldiers, particular individuals, and so on. Let us remember that encyclopedia should not go for the 'shock value' with (incorrect and controversial) quotations. We have wikiquote for the latter, and the discussed quote is there.
Pilsudski believed in the rule of strong hand. As explained on talk 1) we should not quote other authors when we can paraphrase their arguments 2) this sentence paraphrases the particular claim quite well. I find it also puzzling that one can argue against inclusion of an opinion of certain author in one sentence, and then complain about paraphrasing (not removal!) of another author's opinion in the next.
I located a book that should help to expand this section; it is indeed a bit short. I will do so shortly.
Edward Rydz-Śmigły was seen by some as Piłsudski's successor. This sentence is referenced to a reliable historical work. I see nothing controversial in it. If you want to rephrase it, go right ahead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your points. Hardly traditions dating back GDL times in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. PLC was not formed then family traditions was emerging. Of course it depends what family defines.
About Juozukas. Looking to this comment it looks like biographies which you read lacks some important info, including how Pilsudski name originated as well. BTW, can you suggest if these biographies which you read states anything about languages he spoke?
Well try to acquire this publication as it do much good if the original words will be added.
Regarding quote of nation of morons; Hardly argument that person's in question remarks are rude allows it to remove from text. Quite contrary it can perfectly fit to describe his views on nationality etc. And you missing the main point - article about person in question written with non crucial comments of his own. What did he think launching one of another military campaign, how he addressed to his opponents and similar. It is unbelievable that in his biographies such or similar quotes are not provided.
About strong hand. Original quote: Pilsudski believed that the world was ruled by brute force, and that fundamental changes could only be obtained, or essential interests defended, by the willingness to use violence, terror, and military power. From this quote other contributors could summarize that Pilsudski supported terrorism, other may argue why not summarize that Pilsudski believed in brute force etc. And this is potential disagreement area, WP:OR should be advised as well. Inclusion proper citation in the main text itself will solve any future misinterpretations
Regarding Edward Rydz per WP:WEASEL insert source in caption, or yet better state clearly who saw him as successor. M.K. 10:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I wrote the Piłsudski (family) article. From the various refs provided it is quite clear that PLC was a major influence on the family. Sure, the name can be traced to pre-PLC Lithuania, but the polonization of szlachta by 20th century was a much more relevant factor.
Yes, he spoke Polish (primarily), although I believe I read somewhere he knew other languages - probably Russian (education), maybe Lithuanian and German. I will see if I can find out more. As for the origins of the name of Piłsudski, Piłsudski (family) is the place to discuss it. And you still need to present a single source that would state he was called Juozukas by his family (according to Urbanowski, his childhood nickname was 'Ziuk'); or a source that his family knew Lithuanian at all and in particular, used it among themselves.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is of utmost importance. I will see what I can do, but if you disagree, feel free to do it yourself - you have demonstrated that you know Polish language, so nothing should be stopping you.
Biographies are not collections of quotes.
Paraphrasing is not OR, it is recommended by SUMMARY, CITE and V, among others.
The source is given (inline citation). I will see if there is room to clarify which factions supported him and saw him as Piłsudski's successor.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to lengthy discussion, which critical moments did not reflected in the article's improvement yet, short points. Piłsudski (family) article can be tagged as {{OR}}. His parents spoke Lithuanian and Juozukas too, your biographical essays have yet another gap. Repressing is one thing interpretation is another thing. Biographies are not collections of quotes - sure, but quotes are inevitable especially in possible FA article. M.K. (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article covers every important information I can think of and it's well referenced. McMonster 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Szczepan1990 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well written, referenced and formatted. Visor 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one caveat. I think the name of the article should be Jozef Pilsudski. --evrik ^(talk) 19:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nihil novi 01:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article will require thorough editing for English usage, after non-native-English-speakers (and some natives) have stopped endlessly altering the contents. Nihil novi (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. One-sided picture. Pilsudski made a number of public statements that were striking then and remain striking today: called Parliament prostitutes (Time magazine [1]) and a "sterile jabbering thing", an attitude summarized as "contemptuous of democracy". [2]. Many more criticisms are out there; "crushing of democracy" rather than "disillusioned with democracy" as currently stated [3], "the bereza concentration camp (Bereza Kartuska) was a blot on Poland's image as a civilized state" [4] Weakened the miltary, did nothing for the economy, from the University of Glasgow: "In the Army, a Pilsudski-ite past became crucial. In 1926 only 10% of army officers had served in the Legions, but by 1939 that figure had risen to 70%. They usually lacked formal military training, and had won their advancement in the Polish-Russian War. This led to the overrating of cavalry to the detriment of armour and aircraft." "Despite this vast power, the BBWR-Pilsudski-military régime did virtually nothing. The economy was still stagnating well after the Depression: unemployment in real terms reached almost 40%, and 52% of Polish industry and capital was owned by foreigners. On the land, the situation was appalling: poverty and hunger increased steadily." [5] Re the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact: Pilsudksi stated that he would like Hitler to "stay in power as long as possible".[6]. Fostered a cult of personality [7] Problematic in terms of legacy: From the National Review: "pre-war Eastern European regimes were hardly paragons of tolerance and democracy. Pilsudski, today's hero (and the man who framed the 1935 Constitution under which the London government continued to exist), killed several times more people in his 1926 coup than the hated Jaruzelski did under martial law." [8] From the New York Times: "He led his country's struggle for independence and democracy but later, until his death in 1935, presided over the disabling of parliamentary government."The prewar regime is beyond criticism," he (Bronislaw Geremek, described by the Times as a distinguished Polish historian and dissident) said. "Pilsudski's flaws are not mentioned." [9] The nature of his rule is much discussed by historians - Hannah Arendt being possibly the most prominent of those who called him a Fascist (ref on request, from Men in Dark Times). And many more. Novickas 02:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One sided how? Criticism is present. Most of what you write above is mentioned in article - that Piłsudski's government was opposed to parliamentary democracy, authoritarian, criticism of his handling of military, and so on. I have not found any works criticizing his handling of the economy - first, he didn't dabble in it much, second, there was a Great Depression era. I am sorry that your favorites are not there, but you can certainly add the quotes to wikiquote, as we discussed on talk. It is not possible to accommodate every single quote and historian's (or famous writer's) remark in an article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite well illustrated how article is one sided. Besides it was a bit of surprise to find out that Pilsudski wanted to see Adolf Hitler in power as long as possible. Besides we have his own words, (which this article lacks in general) " but I would like to see him stay in power as long as possible". M.K. 10:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not surprising once you consider the time and place. Piłsudski died in 1935, well before Hitler became seen as the 'bad guy'; up to '39 most of the countries - included the West and the Baltics - tried to be on the 'good side' of Hitlerite Germany. That Poland too wanted a stable relation with Germany - is hardly strange. And do note that Piłsudski in fact proposed a military intervention against Hitler in early 30s, when Hitler first started to violate the international treaties imposed on Germany after Versailles - but France refused, the west chose the policy of appeasement, and hence Piłsudski, knowing that Poland alone is too weak to deal with Germany, was forced to appease its neighbor, too. I belive we have a paragraph describing Polish-German relations of that period and Piłsudski's role in signing the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact - so it is all well covered. PS. As far as quotes go we could as well quote Piłsudski's critiques of fascism (Urbanowski, v.2, p.486)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a dedicated criticism and controversy section, like those in other FAs (Mahatma Ghandi, Che Guevara). The world's criticism, and that of fellow Poles, could be concisely stated there in several paragraphs. Novickas 15:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the criticism is spread throughout various sections. Since we don't have the 'praise' or 'achievements' section, I believe it is more neutral that way.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very good article about one of greatest Poles of all times Tymek 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well-referenced, balanced, comprehensive portrayal of a crucial figure in early-20th century Europe. Appears to meet all FA criteria. Three points: 1: 'bojówki' or bojówki? Let's stay with one standard. 2: do we know what kind of a socialist he was, what intellectual tradition he fit within? Was he more sympathetic to factory workers or farmers? What indeed were his views on industry and agriculture? Did he ever embrace or critique Marxism? I'm not even sure if any of this is intrinsically relevant, but perhaps a paragraph on his political thought (touching on social issues) would be in order? 3: what, if any, were his religious beliefs? Did he take a position on the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral episode? What relations did he have with the Catholic hierarchy? Biruitorul 06:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'bojówki' vs bojówki - any idea what MoS would reccomend? Interesting comment on his socialist past; I will see if I can find more on any of this. As for religion, it is my understanding he was not deeply religious, and saw religion as a tool, but I will again see if I can dug up more reliable info on that. Thanks for the insightful comments, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urbanowski in his second volume has a chapter Specyfika socjalizmu Piłsudskiego. Briefly, in his youth he supported marxism - as did other socialist of that era - but he always mixed it up with the pro-independence rhetoric. Later he distanced itself from it, seeing it as obsolete - although till the very end he supported some of its ideas (worker rights, etc.). As for religion, Urbanowski is again helpful, with chapter Bogowie i definicje. As he nicely puts it, all honest discussions on Piłsudski's faith should end with a question mark, not a full stop. Piłsudski had his own beliefs and was not overly religious. His conversions between various Christian denominations were pragmatic (related to his marriages). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the article is balanced and adequatly referenced, there is no need for over-simplifications about Piłsudski's nationality. Mieciu K 14:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well-written and comprehensive article. Skillfully addresses all major criticism and presents comprehensive image of his life. He was a difficult and controversial person, so well-written article about him is like a precious treasure. One comment: maybe number of pictures should be trimmed a little bit and images reformatted. - Darwinek 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article, on a difficult, yet important subject. The article is well referenced, well written, and well formatted. It definitely rises to the level of featured article. Turgidson 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While having a laugh reading the arguments on the merits of the Pilsudski article, I found the related article on Zalavas to be very interesting and very revealing about one part of the problem. Although a small group finds the Pilsudski article to border on "sublime perfection," they are part of the same group that undoubtably would find the Zalavas article to be worthy of a few barn stars, and the exchanging high fives amongst themselves, as well as having the satisfaction of adding another "stellar" article to Wikipedia. The truth of the matter is that the Zalavas article contains a lot of irrelevant claptrap bordering on an ultra-Nationalistic rant. It is not an article worthy of an Encyclopedia, nor is it presented in an encyclopedic fashion. It's at best an essay, and a poorly written one at that. In reality Zalavas is a tiny village in Lithuania with a population of around two hundred people. O.K., a famous person was born there. Now to get a better feel for where I am going with this, please click onto the Hodgenville, Kentucky article for some ideas of what that article could look like. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln is not as important, well known, or as famous as the Naczelnik Panstwa is to the English speaking world, but that is neither here nor there. What you don't have in the Hodgenville article is a link to Antietam, or Copperheads, or the Thirteenth Amendment, or even Louis J. Weichmann, let alone Mount Rushmore. On the other hand Zalavas links us to Riga, and to the Polish Defensive War, it links us to magnates, and to Lenin, we are linked to assassination, and to Russification, to Aleksandr Ulyanov, to Rurik, the Polish-Bolshevik War, the 17th century and the 18th century just to name a portion of the plethora of imbecilities presented to us as an excuse for another "article". And there are plenty more of nonsensical links to boot. Before anyone jumps to conclusions regarding my position about links, let me say this. I like links. Links are good. But here is another example of where the line has been crossed, and puts Wikipedia in a position to be ridiculed. Instead of an article about Zalavas, what we have here is another "vehicle" to tell us more about the Billewicz family doweries and Soviets and 1934, and December 5, etc.,etc., etc., than information we have regarding Zalavas. And in regards to the Pilsudskis article, we have the same ramblings and attempts to further some cult of personality, an overkill of fawning prose (replete with too many photos), and a constant removal of sourced materials because some find it "offensive". Until these issues are resolved, that article remains in a non-neutral kind of limbo. I am hoping that this will be corrected and the article will reach FA status. P.S. I hope I gave everyone who likes these kind of links, a good dose of them today from me. P.P.S. After reading some of the comments at this "vote", I'm surprised that there is not a link to Bethlehem.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dan (talk • contribs)

Do I detect a faint note of sarcasm in the above? Naah, it's my imagination. -- Turgidson (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your imagination might be in 5th or 6th gear, but that's O.K. with me. Sure, Bethlehem was sarcastic; but not the rest of it. Several times I have added the "neutrality" tag in order to bring some problems with the article out in the open. Evidently some people who should know better, have removed it over and over again in spite of the clear caveat on the tag not to do so until questionable issues were resolved. This amongst other things has indeed put the article into limbo. I truly do want this article to obtain FA status, but many things have yet to be ironed out. This corraling of the same old group of Polish Wikipedians (and non-Poles too) to "vote" in support of its present format is an insult to the Wikipedia Project. The chorus of "well written, well referenced" blather must be either scripted or written by people who have a poor grasp of English, its grammar, and syntax, or giving us more proof that the non-existant Cabal, does in fact exist. And if I'm way off and wrong about this, let me say that a support vote of the article in its present condition with a remark like "A very good article about one of greatest Poles (sic)of all times," just shouldn't cut it with those in a position to take a closer look at this mess. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before casting stones at "people who have a poor grasp of English", please note that "non-existant" (sic) is a non-existent word in the English language. OK, I'll downshift now into 4th gear. Turgidson (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the typo. Can you add any substence (sic) or comment on the issues. If not, I'd suggest downshifting to "neutral" which is the position where I'd like the article to be. That's all I'm asking. Dr. Dan (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't see anything objectionable in the article, and moreover I find it very clear, thorough and professional. K. Lásztocska^talk 02:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose promotion to "Featured article status", as glossing over strong neutrality concerns with a sparkling FA star is not an option. Reminds me of Cracow/Kraków/Krakau, where GA status was attempted repeatedly even though basic coverage of the 19th century Austrian era was actively denied by edit warring. Wikipedia should not foster the vanity of users who can not get enough of awards, stars etc. Discussing is a waste of time, but leaving the field to those who boost each other's egos is not an option, either. Only uninvolved people should be allowed to nominate and support an article they stumble upon, not roosters crowing about eggs they've laid, demanding them to get painted as easter eggs. -- Matthead DisOuß 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that discuss edits, not editors, holds here too. Opposing because you dislike certain editors and their work work is not what the FA process is about.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder, is [accusing somebody of (accusing somebody of making a personal attack)] considered a personal attack also? - wikistress anyone? - Discussing editors is not the same as personal attacks, it is done when considering people for receiving a block or a ban, when considering granting adminship, etc. In FAC personal complements are pretty common - personal criticism is rare.--Keerllston 16:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I believe you were referring to Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks which is not policy - despite it being somewhat implied in the second sentence of "no personal attacks": "comment on content not contributor"--Keerllston 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But given on what we are dealing with, the comment originally made is not helpful at all. Piotrus is right, we need all of the people who can make FA's and as many of them as possible. While if Matthead still wants to oppose the article for another reason, I cannot personally stop him, but I kindly ask that he retract his statement about FA makers. Gruntbrat (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Pretty good reading. Well researched, rich in references. --Beaumont (@) 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very good read, indeed. The so called controversial issues regarding the complexities of the article subjects are well explained and propped up with an impressive collection of inline citations, which make this article one of the more comprehensive FA submissions yet in a series of articles covering the rebirth of modern Poland. The subsection Authoritarian rule seems a bit stubby with only a couple of sentences in it. Perhaps it could be worked into other sections or slightly expanded to justify its presence. --Poeticbent talk 19:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section has several subsections, hence the small amount of text under it should not be considered a section stub - as it goes into much detail with subsections; the small para is meant as an introduction for the following subsections.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I got confused by the absence of the usual line below the section title, highlighting it and in the process introducing its subdivisions. I guess, it's a layout thing. I got used to the lines, a personal quirk. Please don't worry about it, though some dividing lines would be nice, especially around the first two "cascading" titles which are kind of repetitious: "1.Life/1.1.Early life." Personally, I would prefer larger titles, for example "1.Early life", "2.World War I", etc. --Poeticbent talk 23:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I see that. Could you show me an artice where such a division is used, or a WP:MOS part explaining it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Mahatma Gandhi. "Early life" is the first section with primary heading followed by "Civil rights movement in South Africa" (again, primary heading only). The first section (No.3) with primary and secondary headings is called "Struggle for Indian Independence", and it has a short intoduction similar to Józef Piłsudski Authoritarian rule. I like that kind of layout, because primary headings seem a bit easier to follow. --Poeticbent talk 03:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems thorough and balanced to me. Could doubtless still be improved as could every article, but objections mostly seem to be nitpicking or else politically/personally motivated.--Kotniski (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection [1a, 1b, 1d]- I like it, extremely well referenced, good pictures, good writing.

It seems User:Piotr actions are somehow part of this discussion, NPOV problems being the main concern.

It seems the parenthesis are adequate in many of the occasions where it they are used.

"From his youth, Piłsudski desired the independence of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth." weird, strange, perhaps even bizarre phrasing?

"(who after World War II, in Britain, would realize Piłsudski's youthful medical ambition by herself becoming a psychiatrist)" please get rid of these parenthesis and integrate the comment into the paragraph, if it cannot be done it does not belong in the paragraph anyway.

"(200,812 rubles – some $100,000)" same - and is that U$100,000 in constant dollars? - $100,000 dollars back then was a lot more than it is now, rubles as well.

"The most important role, however, was assigned to a relatively small (approximately 20,000-man)" no note on the size of the other ones - easier than calling it small or big would be noting the size of the other sections so that this is clear - there are other uses of "small" - "small cadre of" - 'the support was smaller than anticipated by Piludski' - elaboration on what is meant by "small" in each situation would be nice.

"According to historian Norman Davies, Piłsudski believed in government by a strong hand" is incongruent with the rest of the paragraph - it should be integrated, it should not be deleted, perhaps into a section on his political views

I would strongly suggest making a section on his views/policial political position - it is somewhat treated as part of his "Life" but it is an important topic itself especially in regards to his political legacy and historical opinions/treatments of/on him. Socialism and Nationalism and then Nationalism, strong government - I believe this would adequately address NPOV issues or at least bring them out to the light.--Keerllston 13:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited second fragment by removing it - irrelevant and unreferenced. Copyedited third by removing the dollars - indeed, confusing. Left the first one, which sounds ok to me - if you can rephrase it to sound better, please do. Left the fourth one - it's hard to get details on the numbers; I'd prefer to leave the ones we have. If somebody would like to write a section on his political views, go ahead - but per my earlier arguments, I believe that the current structure is logical enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Matthead as I am completely uninvolved. Also per Piotrus. Space Cadet (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. I am amazed at the continual praise of how well this article is written. I have seem better term papers come out of a third-rate Community College. If anyone considers this an Encyclopedic article as it is presented, they need to take a real close look at its appearance and style. It needs to be worked on significantly before it appears as a FA, article. It's bias and non-neutrality are glaring to anyone having a complete picture of events surrounding this individual. The majority of all of the votes on this page stem from individuals with "an axe to grind", who are presenting a one-sided picture of a cult of personality propaganda piece. The overwhelming number of references (some from questionable sources) give it a very unencyclopedic look. And it is peppered with these excessive references because so much of the article cannot survive without some kind of "backing" (that is how questionable the statements are). I certainly hope people with authority will look at the article as it written and ask for some more time to improve it. In the meantime, this "calling out the vote", reminds me of a Old-Time Chicago Election. Btw, a Support vote with the comment ...per Matthead, (who happens to oppose its current form), ...as I am completely uninvolved... strikes me as oxymoronic, like so many passages in the current article. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 ::*Copyedited second fragment by removing it - irrelevant and unreferenced. Copyedited third by removing the dollars - indeed, confusing. Left the first one, which sounds ok to me - if you can rephrase it to sound better, please do. Left the fourth one - it's hard to get details on the numbers; I'd prefer to leave the ones we have. If somebody would like to write a section on his political views, go ahead - but per my earlier arguments, I believe that the current structure is logical enough.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 17:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Support''' per Matthead as I am completely uninvolved. Also per Piotrus. [[User:Space Cadet|Space Cadet]] ([[User talk:Space Cadet|talk]]) 17:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
+* '''Further Comment.''' I am amazed at the continual praise of how well this article is written. I have seem better term papers come out of a third-rate Community College. If anyone considers this an Encyclopedic article as it is presented, they need to take a real close look at its appearance and style. It needs to be worked on significantly before it appears as a FA, article. It's bias and non-neutrality are glaring to anyone having a complete picture of events surrounding this individual. The majority of all of the votes on this page stem from individuals with "an axe to grind", who are presenting a one-sided picture of a [[cult of personality]] propaganda piece. The overwhelming number of references (some from questionable sources) give it a very unencyclopedic look. And it is peppered with these excessive references because so much of the article cannot survive without some kind of "backing" (that is how questionable the statements are). I certainly hope people with authority will look at the article as it written and ask for some more time to improve it. In the meantime, this "calling out the vote", reminds me of a Old-Time Chicago Election. Btw, a '''Support''' vote with the comment ...''per Matthead'', (who happens to oppose its current form), ...''as I am completely uninvolved''... strikes me as oxymoronic, like so many passages in the current article. [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]] ([[User talk:Dr. Dan|talk]]) 18:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)