Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Off-topic Arbcom stuff: Way, way, too much.
Line 416: Line 416:


:::::After the past month's unproductive brawl at the [[Talk:Chopin#LEAD: Polish, French, or Polish-French?|"Chopin" talk page,]] I am pleasantly surprised at the civil tone and productivity of this single day's discussion, here on this page, of the same topic. I am inclined to credit much of the difference to the salutary influence of [[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]], and I hope that we may continue to benefit from his participation, under the terms of the 6 May amendment of his restriction, permitting him to raise questions and to comment at this page. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 09:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::After the past month's unproductive brawl at the [[Talk:Chopin#LEAD: Polish, French, or Polish-French?|"Chopin" talk page,]] I am pleasantly surprised at the civil tone and productivity of this single day's discussion, here on this page, of the same topic. I am inclined to credit much of the difference to the salutary influence of [[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]], and I hope that we may continue to benefit from his participation, under the terms of the 6 May amendment of his restriction, permitting him to raise questions and to comment at this page. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 09:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Forgive me for having to bother you all at this forum, but I strongly have to disagree with the compromised, sockpuppeteer, [[user:Nihil novi|Nihil]], and his being "''..."pleasantly" surprised at the civil tone and productivity of this single day's discussion, here on this page, of the same topic. I am inclined to credit much of the difference to the salutary influence of [[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]]...''". I am more inclined that the civil tone and productivity (what productivity, on this unresolved matter, still simmering), that you believe is thanks to the highly discredited and banned Wikipedian, [[user:Piotrus|aka Prokonsul Piotrus]], is actually more as a result of your not making personal attacks of this nature


== New article to create: [[European May 2010 flood]] (suggested title) ==
== New article to create: [[European May 2010 flood]] (suggested title) ==

Revision as of 17:47, 25 May 2010

Shortcuts

WikiProject iconPoland Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT

Useful shortcuts

Useful templates

Please note we have two functioning userboxes:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Poland.
Substitute: {{User WikiProject Poland}}


This user is a member of the
Polish military history task force
of WikiProject Military history.
Substitute: {{User WPMILHIST Polish military history task force}}


There is also a Portal:Poland/Welcome message box that can be used to notify new users about this noticeboard and our related projects. Just slap {{subst:Portal:Poland/Welcome}}--~~~~ on their usertalkpage - it has its own heading.

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Józef Elsner

The article on Chopin's piano teacher, Józef Elsner, was recently moved by a German editor, Matthead, to "Joseph Anton Franz Elsner." Elsner originally hailed from Wrocław in mixed-population Silesia, but he spent the bulk of his life in Polish-speaking Lwów and Warsaw.

Another editor has objected to the two middle names, "Anton Franz," by which Elsner is not commonly known (in Poland, Elsner's name appears with the single, different middle name, "Ksawery"). JackofOz has proposed that the article be moved to "Joseph Elsner (composer)," to disambiguate the subject from two architects who are also called "Joseph Elsner."

I have counter-proposed that the article simply be reverted to its original title, "Józef Elsner," the name that the subject used for most of his life.

Interested parties may look in on the discussion here.Nihil novi (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the article's title to the original "Józef Elsner." Nihil novi (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 35,715 as of May 1. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 158 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform User:Radeksz od this; he is the one who usually takes care of Poland unreferenced BLPs. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus' to do list #1

So I am back, if in a limited fashion. Thanks to all who helped with that, and thanks to all who kept this project alive in the meantime. Over the next days I will be suggesting a bunch of edits here, for your consideration. Please strike them out if you carry them; or let me know if you think they are unnecessary/unhelpful. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task 1

Task 1: rescue useful images listed at the bottom of User talk:Witkacy (User_talk:Witkacy#File_source_problem_with_File:Roman_Sanguszko.jpg and below) and User talk:Emax (User_talk:Emax#File_source_problem_with_File:Kazimierz_Poniatowski_.281721-1800.29.jpg and below) by finding sources. A simple way of doing this is to use Google Images search, try to find a source, and then replace the no source template in the image with the link to the source. Please let me know who is willing to do take care of that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back if in a limited way. I google Roman Sanguszko but with no luck. I found Kazimierz Poniatowski here [1] Jniech (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task 2

Task 2: ~weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: French demonstration of 15 May 1848 started at 23:35, 28 April 2010 - Koralli started at 07:09, 5 May 2010)

Task 3

Task 3: varia

  • please remove the signature breaking assessment template at Talk:Polish Corridor
    • too much was removed, please replace it with {{WikiProject Poland|class=C|importance=mid}}

So... who is taking care of this? Don't be shy, post here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task 4

Task 4: ~weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: Polski Izvor started at 11:57, 5 May 2010 - Bernardo Kliksberg started at 20:47, 6 May 2010)

  • PL-Grid - multiple copyedit issues, appropriate tags: {{notability}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{uncategorized}}, {{external links}} and {{Context}}
  • Mateusz Masternak - main article: {{Poland-boxing-bio-stub}}, talk: assess as stub and low importance for our project, add {{WPBiography|class=stub|importance=low||living=yes}}
  • Grzegorz Proksa - rate as stub for our project on talk
  • Military Ordinariate of Poland - add [[pl:Ordynariat Polowy Wojska Polskiego]] (if the bot hasn't), talk: tag with {{MILHIST}}. It is a borderline stub, consider adding {{Poland-mil-stub}} and {{RC-stub}}
  • Beauty Festival - main article, appropriate tags: {{unreferenced}}, {{uncategorized}}, talk: {{WikiProject Poland|class=start|importance=low}}, {{WikiProject Beauty Pageants|class=start|importance=}}
  • please welcome and invite to the project the following user(s): User talk:Henryk Borawski

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task 5

Task 5: ~weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: Milan Vučićević started at 11:31, 7 May 2010 to List of military aircraft operational during World War II started at 03:10, 11 May 2010)

  • Polish Mexican (main: {{Poland-stub}}, {{Mexico-stub}}, talk: {{WikiProject Poland|class=stub|importance=low}) {{WikiProject Mexico|class=stub|importance=low}})
  • Józef Kowalczyk - please consider T:TDYKing it with {{subst:NewDYKnom | article=Józef Kowalczyk | hook=... that the latest [[Primate of Poland]], '''[[Józef Kowalczyk]]''' received a diploma of archivist of the [[Vatican Secret Archives]]? | status=new | author=Kpalion | nominator=Piotrus}}
  • Polish Festival @ Federation Square - main: {{notability}}, {{uncategorized}}, {{unreferenced}}

Comment

Comment: so... am I just creating a list of tasks for my self to do in x amount of time? Also, T:TDYK nominations are on timer, so if nobody is moving them, there is no point for me to come up with hooks here :( PS. Jniech - thanks for helping, I know you don't have much time, what you did is appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't been keeping up with your suggestions, Piotrus, especially the DYK nominations. I'm afraid they're past the 5-day limit now. I'll stay on top of them in the future. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my experience that DYK reviewrs are often lenient with the 5-day deadline. I'd suggest using the DYKs, just add a note for the DYK reviewer that they may be a bit older than usual - and let them decide if they are worth using. Thanks for the help, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. As you know, reward for a job well done is... :) Expect more stuff around Sunday! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task 6

Those are some of the gnomish edits I noticed need to be made as far back as in January. As always, those are suggestions, use your best judgment and start a discussion if you have any questions/comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Mongol invasion of Poland - Update the following sentence with correct dates and requested reference: There were also later, smaller Mongol invasions of Poland (1259-1260 and 1287-1288).<ref>{{pl icon}} Jacek Kawecki, [http://www.futurum.pl/historia/najazd.doc Najazd mongolski na Polskę w 1287 roku]</ref>
  2. Ulryk Hozjusz - [[Category:1455 births]], [[Category:1535 deaths]], [[Category:Polish nobility]]
  3. Władysław Pobóg-Malinowski - [[Category:1899 births]], [[Category:1962 deaths]], [[Category:Polish Army officers]], [[Category:Polish historians]]
  4. Liuboml - add {{commonscat|Liuboml}}
  5. Ryksa - disambig - link Richeza of Lotharingia as this the person noted in the second disambig choice ("Blessed Rycheza or Ryksa (around 1063), Queen of Poland, wife of King Mieszko II (1025-1031).")
  6. Wacław Kostek-Biernacki - reassess as start, add File:Wacław Kostek Biernacki.jpg
  7. Minsk Ghetto - restore [[Image:Map of the Minsk Ghetto.jpg|thumb|300px|Map of the Minsk Ghetto by professor [[Barbara Epstein]]]] (OTRS permission received, see image's page)
  8. Workers Defense Committee - create redirect: #REDIRECT [[Workers' Defense Committee]]
  9. New Year's Day (song) - add [[Category:Solidarity (Polish union movement)]]
  10. create redirects: Wilenska Brygada Kawalerii and Wileńska Brygada Kawalerii to #REDIRECT [[Wileńska Cavalry Brigade]]
  11. add [[Category:The Enlightenment]] to Russian Enlightenment
  12. add [[Category:Christianity]] to Christ of Europe
  13. redirect Polish Embassy in Washington #REDIRECT [[Embassy of Poland in Washington, D.C.]]
  14. add interwikis: Battle of Ancona (Bitwa o Anconę); Arbeitslager (Arbeitslager), John Ward (RAF officer) (John Ward), Military Ordinariate of Poland (Ordynariat Polowy Wojska Polskiego), Second Infantry Fusiliers Division (2 Dywizja Strzelców Pieszych),
  15. assess: Christ of Europe (talk: {WikiProject Poland|class=start|importance=low}} {{WPReligion|class=start|importance=low}}
  16. Sondergerichte (main: {{wikify}} {{globalize}} talk: {{WikiProject Germany|class=start|importance=low}} {{WikiProject Law|class=start|importance=low}} )

Minor update. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Władysław II the Exile - reassess to start
  2. Black Procession - assess as start
  3. Richeza of Lotharingia - reassess as start

Task 7

New batch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: List of military aircraft operational during World War II started at 03:10, 11 May 2010 to Poznan, Ohio started at 17:49, 17 May 2010)

  1. Stańczyk (painting) - main: {{Poland-stub}} ; talk: {{Visual arts|class=stub}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  1. Also add {{Poland-stub}} to Battle of Grunwald (painting)
  1. Electric power supply of Polish State Railways - main: {{notability}} {{Cleanup-link rot}} {{unreferenced}} and {{Poland-stub}}. Talk: {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  2. Maciej Kozłowski - Talk: {{WPBIO|class=Stub|living=no}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  3. Tomasz Dobiszewski - main: {{notability}} and {{Poland-artist-stub}}. Talk: assess as stub
  4. King Matt the First - please consider nominating at T:TDYK with {{subst:NewDYKnom | article=King Matt the First | hook=... that the 1923 [[Children's literature|children's novel]] '''[[King Matt the First]]''' is as popular in Poland as [[Peter Pan]] is in the English-speaking world? | status=new | author=Nbarth| nominator=Piotrus}}
  5. Kosciuszko Park (Chicago) - please inform the author (User talk:Orestek) that only a minor expansion is needed for T:TDYKing
  6. The Farm 51 - main: {{Poland-stub}}, {{Company-stub}}, {{notability}}
  7. PESA 120Na - main: {{Poland-stub}}
  8. Józef Śliwiński - talk: {{WPBIO|class=Stub|living=no}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  9. Maciek Fronski - move to Maciek Froński. Main: {{Poland-bio-stub}} , talk: {{WPBIO|class=Stub|living=yes}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Stub|importance=Low}}
  10. Please replace instances of use of File:Jerzy Ossolinski.jpg with File:Jerzy ossolinski.jpg.
  11. Please speedy delete File:Zygmunt I Stary.jpg - a better version is already on Commons under the same name: commons:File:Zygmunt I Stary.jpg
  12. Please speedy delete File:Zygmunt Pulawski.jpg - a better image is already on Commons under the same name: commons:File:Zygmunt Pulawski.jpg
  • With respect to the DYK's, it has been 7 days since the articles were created. Last week, the "overdue" DYK I submitted was rejected. Do you think I should try again anyway?
  • I don't think File:Zygmunt Pulawski.jpg can be deleted until May 26. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DYK - is exactly on the 7 day deadline, so I say yes, go for it.
Regarding the file, we can wait - but I don't think anybody but me has ever provided a source for Emax/Witkacy's images so... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK deadline is 5 days, not 7, but I submitted it anyway. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I always thought it was around 7. Anyway, as DYK does have a backlog (now, roughly 20 days) I tend to see adding things to the backlog as fine. That said, I may be wrong - I will raise this on DYK talk in the near future. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task 8

New batch, trying to keep them semi-weekly so they are not overwhelming (ha, you should try doing it every two weeks :D). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly analysis of Portal:Poland/New article announcements (batch: Aleksandra Stadniczenko started at 20:06, 17 May 2010 to European Paralympic Committees started at 18:09, 19 May 2010)

  1. Aleksandra Stadniczenko - Talk: {{WPBIO|class=Start|living=yes}} {{WikiProject Poland|class=Start|importance=Low}}
  2. all articles created by Starzynka need a WikiProject Poland project tag (stub) on their talk; here's a list:
  1. Jakub M. Godzimirski - as above, +{{Poland-academic-bio-stub}}
  2. Lower Silesian-Markish Railway - {{nofootnotes}}, please inform the creator (User talk:Grahamec) that if he were to add inline references, his article would classify for T:TDYK
  3. Ekstraliga Kobiet - talk: Poland and {{Football|class=stub|importance=mid}} WikiProject tags
  4. Hate speech laws in Poland - main: {{wikify}}, talk: {{WikiProject Poland|class=start|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=low}}
  1. Also, assess Talk:Law of Poland for WPLAW project as mid
  2. I hesitate to nominate this for DYK because of the glaring error in the first body paragraph. Polish constitution does indeed have a provision that protects the freedom of speech - Art. 54 ("The freedom to express opinions, to acquire and to disseminate information shall be ensured to everyone." and "Preventive censorship of the means of social communication and the licensing of the press shall be prohibited.", see [2]). This should be corrected in the article before it can be DYKed.
  1. Antoni Blusiewicz Haftka - restore hoax template, see AfD
  2. Jan Berdyszak - main: [[pl:Jan Berdyszak]], [[Category:1934 births]], [[Category:Polish artists]]talk: Poland project bio, start, also WP:BIO|class=start|living=yes
  3. Sławomir Rawicz - correct bolden name in lead; correct instances of Glinski to Gliński in text, add {{Refimprove}}
  4. User talk:OGUREK - please invite to our project

History of Poland

For a long while, User:Orczar has been working on improving History of Poland article. That article has grown too long, and he is now splitting it into subarticles (See Talk:History_of_Poland#Article_length). The way that the article is being split is however problematic. Instead of using the scheme we developed years ago (and reflected in the Template:History of Poland) new articles are being created, potentially resulting in loss of content (as they seem to be based on content split from Orczar's rewritten History of Poland and not on the old versions) and thus result in the loss of information from the old subpages or (at least in one case) overlapping with the current ones, creating forks. New articles are:


New articles that have been created were merged with the old articles to the degree that this could reasonably be done. The old articles had a lot of unreferenced content that in my opinion could not be reasonably kept (I thought I had explained that). For example History of Poland (966-1385) had the following sentence: "In 966 the Holy Roman Emperor Otto I the Great affirmed the ducal title held by the Polanes leader Mieszko I, which Mieszko had received a few years earlier, by pledging allegiance to the emperor, when he was defeated by Margrave Gero." The author of this sentence seems to have access to some detailed information, but he's not revealing what his source might be; this is too unreliable to be merged. As for the History of Poland (1385-1569), large portions of this article are copied sections of a 1916 book by Julia Swift Orvis; was this material supposed to be merged in? Is this encyclopaedia-type content? Saying that my articles result in loss of content is surely a joke. The richness of the old content can easily be brought back by returning to the versions from before my edits; this is not a problem in Wikipedia. Ibrahim ibn Jakub is mentioned repeatedly; in the Piast Poland article I happened to be using the Arabic version of his name. I thought I was being rather comprehensive and no one would accuse me of omitting Ibrahim (or anything else of essential encyclopaedic substance). The names of the articles are easy to change, I tried to come up with names more descriptive than just dates, didn't think of them as permanent. The Commonwealth era articles were split because of the quantity of the material that I thought was worth bringing to the English speaking audience. As for merging edit history, merging talk pages, "orphaned forks" etc., these are technical issues, that I'm not familiar with, I tried to follow the merging instructions. Again, the old richness and high quality of the material that I have replaced can easily be brought back. Orczar (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this explanation. I think that your articles are on a better level than the ones replaced, but could I ask you to move the content you think is dubious to talk of the article, instead of just removing it? Perhaps other editors will be able to find sources for those claims. As for proper merger, at this point it has to be done by an admin - hopefully Malik will help. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin, Frenchman

The "Frédéric Chopin" lead has, until recently, described the composer as Polish, of expatriate-French paternity. For some weeks, several editors, including two non-Polish ones who use Polish-appearing names, have been advocating the view that Chopin was French by birth, since, under the Code Napoléon, his Polish-resident French-born father never lost his French citizenship and, indeed, automatically imparted it to his Polish wife upon their marriage. The sole source given for this argument is an online article (http://diaph16.free.fr/chopin//home.htm) by Emmanuel Langavant, agrégé de droit public, professeur à la faculté de droit de l'université de Lille II. In reliance on this authority, the misleading and unorthographic expression, "Polish born composer and virtuoso pianist of Polish-French descent" has been introduced into the article's lead. I have reverted it, but the controversy continues. Interested editors are invited to the article and to the discussion. Nihil novi (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the phrase "a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of French-Polish parentage and citizenship" pretty helpful, although something about him residing in France for a big chunk of his life may be helpful as well. I'd suggest saying "parentage, citizenship and residentship." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the citizenship bit is clear original research (does it even make sense to talk about Polish citizenship back then?)--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that saying he had Polish citizenship is a bit of a stretch. We do know that he had French citizenship (because we have a copy of his French passport) but to write of "French-Polish parentage and French citizenship" would only spark an edit war. Varsovian (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Well, how about differentiating between French citizenship and Polish nationality? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that "we have his passport" is still not enough for me to want to include reference to his French citizenship in the lead. Firstly because we don't know that passport implies citizenship (even today I"m not sure that it always does, and back then when the concept of citizenship was in its infancy even in France, I don't know of any basis for assuming it), and secondly because even if it is true, the sources mention it so rarely - if at all - that it would be giving the matter very undue weight to include it in our first paragraph.--Kotniski (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. Nihil novi (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is that merely having a French passport (which clearly states that Chopin was born to French parents) isn't good enough for you to accept that Chopin had French citizenship? Well, I suppose that that is your right but there are a number of WP:RS which disagree with you (and at least one which goes on to point out that Chopin had been born French). Can you provide an RS which says that although Chopin had a number of French passports, he was not a French citizen? Varsovian (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: 1) we are discussing lead, not the body, right? Nobody is challenging the paragraph in Chopin#Paris, yes? 2) Is there anybody who would like to see the inclusion of citizenship in the lead? If so, what is the rationale for this being important enough to merit lead inclusion (if only Szulc is discussing it, it doesn't seem that crucial to mention in the short lead summary). That said Szulc does seem to imply that passport = citizenship (again, is this a contention common or exceptional as far as early 19th century goes?).
Comments: After rereading the lead, I see that the sentence goes "Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of French-Polish parentage", as such I don't think that we need to clarify he was of Polish nationality (as I suggested before). Also, the second para describes he moved from (partitioned) Poland to France, so my suggestion about adding a note on French-Polish residentship is less needed as well, but I still put it out for your consideration. Lastly, on the passport/citizenship issue, I think that if we decide to include that in the lead, we should also clarify the following issues: did he have a Duchy of Warsaw passport/citizenship (his place of birth) and that he obtained a Russian passport later (as a result of Duchy ceasing to exist and partitions of Poland - a n important link currently not present in the lead). PS. Once the lead becomes stable, I think it would be a good idea to nominate this article for WP:GA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the article may not be very far from FA quality; but personally I wouldn't like to be involved in any canonization process, if it may involve the sort of outlandish discourse that we have been experiencing over Chopin's citizenships, passports and nationality. Nihil novi (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with some cleanup (it's a little choppy and not completely referenced) it could probably get thru GA. FAs get more eyes; someone might want to see a more detached version of the nationalism issue, reflecting for example Norman Davies's 'Who is to say?' in God's Playground [4]. Or quibble with 'he was the first composer to take a national genre of music from his home country and transform it into a genre worthy of the general concert-going public' when other sources include him in a list: Carl Maria Von Weber, Crusell, Beethoven, Berlioz, Liszt,...[5], [6]. Novickas (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The intense argument there over the lead sentences - centering on whether he should be described as Polish or Polish-French - doesn't rely solely on the Code Napoleon argument - it also concerns his father's ethnicity, generally described as French, and on Tad Szulc saying that F. Chopin obtained a French passport in 1835. (Another source gives an earlier date). A Gbook link to Szulc's he-became-a-French-citizen-in-1835 was at some point refd with a Google book link that has gone away there - so see it here [7]. Novickas (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Clarify that the biographer uses the phrase 'became a French citizen'. Novickas (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am perplexed at the fact that the only accepted source is that of Tad Szulc who wrote that Chopin "became a French citizen", which, according to the Code Napoléon under which Chopin was born, is obviously incorrect. But Tad Szulc wrote it in a book, so that has to be correct!
On Chopin's talk page, I have given the name of several famous people in the same case as Chopin, and with their double nationality given together in the first sentence of the lead.
I also find it interesting that there is no problem in this instance:
  • Count Alexandre Joseph Colonna-Walewski, born two months after Chopin, also in the Duchy of Warsaw, the illegitimate son of Napoléon & Maria Walewska: "Alexandre Florian Joseph, Duke Colonna-Walewski (4 May 1810 – 27 October 1868) was a Polish and French politician and diplomat. He was the son of Napoleon I and his mistress Marie, Countess Walewski." The Code Napoléon did not apply to him because he was recognised by his mother's husband, but he did become a French citizen after emigrating to France.
The list of Poles who have had another nationality because of a French or other national father is long. Their national duality, either from birth or obtained by choice later in life, is always recognised, except in the case of Frédéric Chopin.
Someone please explain to me why the special handling of Chopin, which I could understand on Polish wiki.
--Frania W. (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding the GBook link, I think it should be restored to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a link to the translation in English of the 1804 Code Napoléon.
TITLE I. OF THE ENJOYMENT AND PRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
CHAPTER I. Of the enjoyment of civil rights, please click on TITLE I, Chapter I which is on French nationality of a child being born outside of France of a Frenchman.
I fail to see how referring to the 1804 Code Napoléon, the translation of which is given at the above, and which is on the site of France's Assemblée nationale & the Bibliothéque nationale de France, can be said to be OR. Professeur Emmanuel Langavant does nothing but explain & confirm the terms of the Code, which was in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of the birth of Chopin.
When in 1829 Chopin went to Austria & Germany, he travelled on a Russian passport. In 1831, while in Vienna, he tried to get a visa to go to Paris, but could not get the Russians to agree to it, they kept messing around with his passport, not returning it to him, supposedly having lost it, etc. At the suggestion of the French ambassador in Vienna, he then requested a visa for England with stopover in Paris. He succeeded in getting that visa which had the mention passant par Paris accepted by the Russians, and that's how he was able to go to Paris - the destination he had in mind all the time. He left Vienna on 20 July 1831 arrived in Paris a few days later, and it is after three or four years there - depending on the date of his first French passport -, that he was issued a passport as a Frenchman born in Poland, of French parents. In my opinion, this information is not the result of original research as is constantly reproached me.
In view of all this, I see no reason for automatically ignoring or denying Chopin's French nationality in the lead right along his Polish one.
--Frania W. (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I on the other hand see no reason why should one want to have Chopin's alleged French "nationality" (which is rather in this case citizenship under the so called code Napoleon) in the lead. The article already extensively deal with it. I suggest removing the Polish-French from the lead and restoring the previous situation which was stable for a very long time.  Dr. Loosmark  19:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better still, let's remove the words 'Polish' and 'French' from the lead entirely and let the rest of the article deal with the subject. That would completely solve the problem. Varsovian (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, it was "the French thing", today, it is the "alleged French "nationality"", through which I see more antagonism against anything that's French, specially when it touches Frédéric Chopin.
Again, since he was French from birth, I see no reason to remove that fact from the lead where it belongs together with his being Polish.
"French from birth." This raises a question which, perhaps, a historian of law could address for us. Would an individual in Fryderyk's situation automatically be "French from birth," or would his parents have had to register the choice of French citizenship for him through appropriate channels? Nihil novi (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Nihil: #10 on the page given below, says, in English:
Every child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French.
Period. That's it! His parents did not have to "register the choice of French citizenship for him through appropriate channels", they were not to choose whether their son should be a Frenchman or not, the very fact that Nicolas Chopin was French was it, was the reason his son was French. And that fact was inscribed on the baptismal record, the word "French" in Latin is there for a reason, meaning that the child who had been baptised had a French father. Then the French passport has "born of French parents". What else do you want?
a chapter out of here:
Too bad that books published with mistakes are a better source than the not-in-a-book-form analysis by a civil law professor.
--Frania W. (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Frania, laws are administered by regulations and bureaucracies. If laws always sufficed, there would be no need of lawyers. Nihil novi (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My dear, although I'd rather not use personal examples, I will make an exception here: for several generations there have been cases very similar to that of Chopin père & fils in my family, and I can tell you that no lawyer was ever necessary to prove citizenship. All that was needed was a certified-by-notary birth or marriage certificate (or translation of) to show at the Préfecture de Police or at a certain Embassy. No lawyer. Minimal cost. --Frania W. (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." I have seen that somewhere... Didn't the old Bulldog say it?
--Frania W. (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has Langavant's hypothesis, discussed in this on-line article, [8], received peer review? Nihil novi (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Nihil, to my knowledge, the Code, be it called Napoléon or Highway, is a fact, not a "hypothesis"; so Langavant has done nothing more than discuss a fact, not a hypothesis. The sentence discussed Every child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French. is very clear & does not need the intervention of an army of lawyers to be interpreted to mean that the child born outside of France of a Frenchman is French. So I do not see where Langavant's underlining a very simple sentence in the French civil Code needs to be reviewed by his peer or the President of the French Republic; it belongs to the French Civil Code, and clearer language could not have been used to write that born outside of France of a Frenchman, a child is French.
Please, tell me what type of "peer review" we need to write in Wikipedia about driving on the left in the UK?
or if this is to be an accepted & obvious fact, like breathing is a natural act necessary in order to live?
--Frania W. (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Every child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French". This might be true from the point of view of French bureaucrats of the time. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a person born to a French father in a foreign country and raised in that country really feels/felt French. Or to put it differently if a person doesn't feel French then even 20 "codes Napoleon" won't make him French.  Dr. Loosmark  13:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That person may also be entitled to a dual citizenship, as it may be granted to that person by the state it was born in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That person being born in Poland of a French father, having also been raised in Poland (and no one here is denying him his deep feeling of Polishness or his Polish nationality), that person, namely Frédéric Chopin, could have chosen another country to live in, England, for instance, but he chose France where he lived the entire second part of his life, eighteen years. He even went as far as using the French version of his baptismal names (which, by the way, he had to do as French nationals could, at the time, be given only French names) getting a French passport (several, in fact) with no one having to twist his wrist to do it, thus recognising the fact that he was French, as it was on the basis of his being born of a Frenchman in Poland thus being French, fact that the obtaining of his first French passport was confirming. That very same person lived in a Paris that he adored, lived among French people who adored him, spent summers in the French country home of a French woman among friends of all nationalities as guests; that French-fashion conscious person was one of the most elegant men in France, and when that person, namely Chopin, was on his deathbed, he was surrounded by close friends, French & Polish, and even from the other side of the English Channel. France gave him one of the most grandiose national funerals ever and the crowd was too big to describe who took him to his tomb at the Père Lachaise cemetery. Frédéric Chopin's love of France & the French is expressed in many of his letters.
--Frania W. (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly surprising that Chopin, when forced to remain abroad in the aftermath of the Polish November 1830 Uprising, should choose to do so in France, which was then the center of European and western culture. Many other members of Poland's Great Emigration at the time did the same, including Chopin's friend and Poland's pre-eminent Romantic poet, Adam Mickiewicz, who had no French ancestry.
And if Chopin was honored in life and in death, it was principally as a great artist, and not just by Frenchmen. Nihil novi (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not forced to remain abroad according to this source, [9], The Cambridge companion to Chopin, Cambridge University Press 1995 page 6, "Life in France agreed with him and he quickly put to the back of his mind any thoughts of returning to his homeland (he could easily have done so when the Czar offered the first of many amnesties in 1833.)" Novickas (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, he (and the other members of Poland's Great Emigration) could have returned — had they not cared about expressing themselves freely. Nihil novi (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nonetheless, the fact that he was French was of much help to him because it allowed him to remain in France as a Frenchman, not as a political refugee.
If a French passport was helpful to him, then he did wisely, making use of it. Nihil novi (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nihil, I wish that you would stop trying to prove to me that Chopin was a Polish-Polish Pole. I know of his attachment to the land of his birth as much as you do, but I also know that he was also French. And he knew it too.
--Frania W. (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was Chopin's French girlfriend, George Sand, and French biographer Louis Énault who described him as "more Polish than Poland." Nihil novi (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out before, at the time she made that comment Poland was Russian (with German and Austrian bits). Varsovian (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? Sand wasn't addressing the political geography, but the culture, of Poland. Nihil novi (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. Do you have a WP:RS which talks about what Sand was addressing with that comment? Or is your analysis WP:OR? Varsovian (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George Sand would not have been so stupid as to compare the "Polishness" of an individual with that of a people who had supposedly ceased to exist, as you have suggested, merely because their sovereignty had been destroyed. Nor would Louis Énault have done so:
"Chopin, in spite of spending half of his life in Paris, remained characteristically Polish and was a 'lonely soul.' Louis Énault, a biographer, said: 'The Slavs lend themselves gladly but never give themselves; Chopin is more Polish than Poland.'" Marion Bauer, Music Through the Ages: A Narrative for Student and Layman, p. 248. Nihil novi (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments about Énault, I was actually asking about Sand. I conclude that you have no such sources regarding what she was addressing. Varsovian (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody add a courtesy note about this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France#Chopin.27s_nationality_and_citizenship (also doubles as the France regional noticeboard)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I'd like to suggest that editors post here their versions of the lead. Once we see what is actually disputed, as far as wording in the lead is concerned, it may be easier to reach a consensus - I see that the discussion seems to veer off in directions that are somewhat off-topic, as far as lead is concerned.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead as of now

Note: first two paragraphs only as I don't think the third one is in any dispute. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric François Chopin, in Polish Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (the surname is pronounced [ʃɔpɛ̃] in French, and usually /ˈʃoʊpæn/ in English; 1 March 1810[1] – 17 October 1849), was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of French-Polish parentage, who is considered to have been one of the great masters of Romantic music. Chopin was born in the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw to a French-expatriate father and Polish mother, and was considered a child-prodigy pianist. Following the Russian suppression of the Polish November 1830 Uprising, Chopin settled in France as part of the Polish Great Emigration. In Paris he supported himself as a composer and piano teacher, giving few public performances. After romantic involvements with several Polish women, from 1837 to 1847 he carried on a relationship with the French female novelist George Sand. For the greater part of his life Chopin suffered from poor health; he died in Paris, aged 39, of pulmonary tuberculosis.

I think it does a pretty good job as it is. It's certainly true that there are people whose Polishness has been exaggerated on Wikipedia and elsewhere by overzealous Poles, but with the lead phrased as it is here, I honestly don't think Chopin is one of those cases.--Kotniski (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the second passport it needs to be mentioned that his mother was Polish-French. Chopin was born to French parents (as his passport tells us). Varsovian (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by that; but the passport is presumably following the French legal definition of "French", which as we keep pointing out, is of very little interest to us. In fact the very fact that legally his mother may have been "French", while no reasonable source identifies her as such, is good evidence in itself that the world is not interested in people's nationality in the sense that you and others are trying to impose here.--Kotniski (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the world has always been interested in C's nationality; do you disagree that Norman Davies is a good enough source for that? [10] "Strong emotions have also been generated in interpretation of the works of F. Chopin (1810-49). Although the French have been slightly less proprietorial towards Chopin than the Germans towards Copernicus, the same debates and disagreements concerning the extent and significance of his 'Polishness' have regularly recurred". Novickas (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What one thinks may depend on which Briton one wishes to believe. Chopin's English biographer Arthur Hedley, quoted in our article's "Nationalism" section, writes in Encyclopaedia Britannica that Chopin "found within himself and in the tragic story of Poland the chief sources of his inspiration. The theme of Poland's glories and sufferings was constantly before him, and he transmuted the primitive rhythms and melodies of his youth into enduring art forms." Nihil novi (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also (if the quote above is all Davies says on the matter) he seems to be talking about interpretation of Chopin's works rather than the man's nationality or "citizenship".--Kotniski (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Nihil novi (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A great deal of Chopin historiography revolves around his ethnicity directly in relation to his work, so it's hard to separate the two. From Music in Chopin's Warsaw, Halina Goldberg, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.6: "The demand for unambiguous Polishness, as defined by the successive "-isms," played a role in several aspects of Chopin historiography." From Maja Trochimczyk's entry in The age of Chopin: interdisciplinary inquiries, Indiana University Press, 2004, p.291: "In the process of asserting Chopin's Polish identity at the beginning of the twentieth century, an awareness of his double cultural and personal background (my emphasis) was replaced by a belief in his fully Polish origins." [11] On a general note, apart from the Polish-French in the lead issue (which I'm going to withdraw from - clearly a time sink and I would like to think that people read entire articles rather than stop after the first two sentences), I'd like to see the article move towards more modern sources and interpretations, other than the occasional quote from a notable contemporary. I presume I don't need to justify that. Novickas (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what is meant by the "second passport" (second paragraph)? But I note that nobody is proposing any changes to the lead. Can we assume that as far as the lead is concerned, the current version is an acceptable compromise? Are there any issues about the body that need to be discussed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead: as it reads right now, although there is an improvement by recognising his "French-Polish parentage", is not 100 per cent what I would like to agree to, because Frédéric Chopin was both Polish and French. The problem I am encountering is finding a source other than Langavant, since what he wrote is not in a book form and cannot, supposedly, be used, although we also have the 1804 Code Napoléon itself, in French & with the English translation found online, which I gave somewhere above in previous section. I also realise that we must reach consensus, which, if I understand, would not set the lead in stone. If someone ever comes with properly sourced material RE Chopin's French nationality then the lead could be rectified.
Britannica Macropædia - Knowledge in Depth, 15th edition, 1997, as well as Britannica Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 edition online have Chopin as Polish-French:
  • Frédéric François Chopin Polish-French, born of a French father...
Langavant is not the only author who has demonstrated that Chopin was French at birth, but it is difficult to find all the authors. French pianist Alfred Cortot in his book Aspects de Chopin, chapter: Ce qu'il doit à la France, p. 110 Albin Michel, wrote: "... sa citoyenneté française authentiquée légalement par un passeport...", referring to the 1837 passport. ("His French citizenship legally authenticated by a passport.") Pianist Maria Gondolo della Riva Masera in her book Frédéric Chopin, Aperçus biographiques (ed. Michel de Maule, 2010) calls Chopin Franco-Polish
Finally, at Wikipedia Reliable Sources, I found this: "When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting."
So if it is "more reliable to quote from the text", why can't the 1804 Code Napoléon, with the short sentence A child born... is French, be used as a source? It certainly would simplify matters.
--Frania W. (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Code Napoleon isn't the subject of the article. We are not discussing legal texts in this article - and even if we find some reliable source somewhere that make this link between French law and Chopin's situation, it still wouldn't belong in the lead, but as a detail somewhere in the article. The biographical sources that you quote which describe him as Polish-French/Franco-Polish etc. are of much more significance - if we can conclude that there are a significant number of them relative to the number that describe him simply as Polish, then we could try reflecting both viewpoints in the lead (I once suggested "...a Polish (sometimes described as Polish-French) composer...") --Kotniski (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been my intention to discuss the Code Napoléon in the lead, or make it "the subject of the article", but to have it recognised beforehand as a proper source to support those who say that Chopin was a French national at birth, together with being Polish, and having such stated in the lead: Polish-French.
As for finding a nearly equal number of sources describing Chopin Polish-French vs only Polish, this is impossible because for over a century the Poles have taken over Chopin to the point that the simple fact of bringing out the possible French nationality of Chopin has been taken by the Poles as an attempt to kidnap a national hero.
Without going back to the whole unending debate, I would like to mention again that several articles on famous people mention a double nationality with no outcry, no request for support by secondary or tertiary sources: Einstein, Rubinstein, Werner von Braun, Cortot, Yves Montand, or Guillaume Apollinaire, born a Pole in Italy, who became French at the age of 36, and given as a "French poet, playwright and art critic" as a matter of fact, with not even the batting of an eye.
What I am saying is that Frédéric Chopin is being subjected to a well-orchestrated treatment applied to no one else in Wikipedia.
--Frania W. (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic Arbcom stuff

Piotr, I feel you are pushing the boundaries of your topic ban and its amendment by engaging here. Novickas (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in understanding how you got that feeling. This is the correct place to discuss articles that are under the ban, by definition. — Coren (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The feeling is based on WP experiences - no diffs, sorry, but take a look at the history of the Copernicus article - that conflicts based on 'X was a Yian' have been extremely contentious here and quickly escalate. As opposed to what I saw as the intent of the amendment: that he would request that sources be added to unref'd BLPs, that categories and project tags be added to new articles, point to possible DYKs. I have no problems with those and it doesn't seem anyone else does either. But discussing ethnicity - a minefield. I know it's possible to interpret his comments above as innocuous and as working towards a compromise. But I really would prefer a slower approach to his re-entry into the topic banned area. It's a jump from 'add a Wikiproject Poland tag to this or that article' to encouraging project members to participate in a major ethnicity argument. The argument at Chopin isn't easy so I don't have any specific ideas about how else he could help improve it without inflaming things. Or how else he could ease back into PL-related topics. Suggestions welcome. Novickas (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see nothing wrong with the discussion above, and I would certainly not count it as violation of his current restrictions. Let us assume good faith, shall we? — Coren (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I shall continue to be wary, tho somewhat reassured by the idea that you are watching this page. Novickas (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will resume posting in this thread. Please don't hesitate to let me know if any other concerns arise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After the past month's unproductive brawl at the "Chopin" talk page, I am pleasantly surprised at the civil tone and productivity of this single day's discussion, here on this page, of the same topic. I am inclined to credit much of the difference to the salutary influence of Piotrus, and I hope that we may continue to benefit from his participation, under the terms of the 6 May amendment of his restriction, permitting him to raise questions and to comment at this page. Nihil novi (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for having to bother you all at this forum, but I strongly have to disagree with the compromised, sockpuppeteer, Nihil, and his being "..."pleasantly" surprised at the civil tone and productivity of this single day's discussion, here on this page, of the same topic. I am inclined to credit much of the difference to the salutary influence of Piotrus...". I am more inclined that the civil tone and productivity (what productivity, on this unresolved matter, still simmering), that you believe is thanks to the highly discredited and banned Wikipedian, aka Prokonsul Piotrus, is actually more as a result of your not making personal attacks of this nature

New article to create: European May 2010 flood (suggested title)

I think somebody should try to create an article on this subject - you could start by translating pl:Powódź w Europie w maju 2010 roku. Once created, the article could also be added to Portal:Current events and even see front page exposure in current news. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created: May 2010 Central European floods.  Dr. Loosmark  15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still in a very poor condition and needs lots of work.  Dr. Loosmark  11:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Jasiński

I noticed Tadeusz Jasiński, but I'm confused as the body references Tomasz Jasiński. Is this supposed to be about [12] or [13]. I was considering nominating it for deletion, but contacted the author Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus first, and he suggested I bring it up here. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Polish wikipedia: [14], it's the second one.  Dr. Loosmark  18:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, please move the article to Tomasz Jasiński. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm not being clear. I do not see that notability is established for either person. I'll move it for you all if you like, but I think the article needs more references, and lacking those, I'll nominate it for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be notable historian, with the highest academic degree of "professor". - Darwinek (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the university system in Poland, but please see WP:PROF for guidelines on criteria for notability of professors and academicians. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a cleanup note, now that the article has been moved, we either need to stub or delete Tadeusz Jasiński. I'd prefer stubbing, of course, but can't help with that, unfortunately. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think stubbing makes more sense, as I think you can establish notability for this one easily. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Some sources give 22 February. See Childhood for details.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland&oldid=364149695"