Talk:Józef Piłsudski/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

An unusual detail

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

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

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

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

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

Nietzsche's Image

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

That doesn't seem probable at all. Piłsudski might've had huge influence over what happened in Poland, but he would've had have someone to pass such law first - and I bet everyone would know that if such a law was indeed passed. //Halibutt 03:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was - kind of - true. For details, read the article on Polish legislative election, 1930. It was not Nietzsche that was illegal in itself, it was the political game around his image... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Piotrus. As always, the truth is out there. JackofOz 03:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Piłsudski and Lithuania

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

Pisludski on international scene in 1920

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

Questions about references

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

Could someone explain why a reference (Note 91) to a site discussed at Wikimedia blacklisting/whitelisting,, [1] should stay here? How is an ordinary reviewer, not conversant with blacklisting/whitelisting policy, supposed to know what that space between republika and pl means? Does that indeed mean something? An ordinary interpretation would be that the space in the URL was just a typo. Maybe Wikimedia is the place to discuss this, but this is a start. Novickas 16:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the link, as well as most of the above issues.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC) reference

It's good that icrap and lycos members references were fixed. However, why does a reference still go to It is mentioned at the spam talk page on 9/2/07: "If I recall correctly, is a forum site, which is the reason it is on AntiSpamBot's autorevert list (per our external link guideline, our reliable sources guideline and our 'what wikipedia is not' policy (i.e. "not a linkfarm")). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)" [2] Has its status changed since then?
How did the space between republika and pl get inserted without being mentioned in a diff? See the diffs [3] and [4] - if one scrolls down into the article, to Note #52, one finds that the space was inserted at some point between these two adjacent versions. Did that insertion enable it to fly under AntiSpamBot's radar? How did that happen, and why is a forum site still being used as a reference here? Novickas 00:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are asking. is a webhosting service, and the page in question provides quite a lot of information which I is certainly not controversial - it seems to be the best English language website on this armored train.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware that there have been repeated requests for's removal from the blacklist; your request to have it un-blacklisted was granted [5] in October 2006. But was Dirk Beekstra then speaking in error when he described it in September 2007 as being on AutoSpam's autorevert list, and, since it is a forum, not a reliable source? [6]
I'm also asking you, as an admin, to explain how that space could have gotten inserted without showing up in the diff. Novickas 01:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Because it is not a forum. As for the hard to see addition of spaces in this diff, I'd suggest you bring up at WP:VP(T) or similar place - I have no idea, seems like a bug.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
So, you are saying Dirk Beekstra WAS mistaken? A Google of " spam" brings up quite a few sites. Novickas 02:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Please indent your posts correctly. Yes, I think he was mistaken - but this is off-topic here - perhaps you should ask him.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Per this reply today, the site is blacklisted [7]. I will remove the link and whatever material is supported by it. Your own conscience should guide you in removing the site in other articles that use it. Novickas 01:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There is some misunderstanding somewhere. Many pages from are perfectly acceptable references. Please don't remove the link in question; if you wish, raise it on WP:RSN.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of this site, which has been completely blacklisted at various times, continued on User talk:AntiSpamBot/Sep2007 and User talk:Shadow1. Novickas 16:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality Reference

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

I agree with this in principle, but since it took about 3 seconds to find it in Britannica, I put the ethnic reference in. Why bother? for some reason this is listed as a Good Article, despite its hagiographic tone. Novickas 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand frustration, which arose. Probably every bigger biography article about this person will note about his Lithuanian ethnicity. But indeed, why bother? M.K. 14:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Most Polish historians would probably agree that Pilsudski was ethnicly Lithuanian but he himself probably considered himself Polish. If you want to go into detail Pilsudski was from a family of Lithuanian gentry, which became Polonised over time and by the early XX century could hardly be called Lithuanian gentry. So the real question is not was Pilsudski Lithuanian, the question is how do you define someone of Lithuanian ancestry. Mieciu K 14:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Till his death he perfectly spoke Lithuanian language. So this gentry is evident I suppose. M.K. 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Until World War II, many educated Lithuanians spoke Polish. Did that make them Poles? Nihil novi 04:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not see a problem here - specific definition is polonzed Lithuanian nobility. Why invent any more definitions, this one is quite exact. Or the problem is word Lithuanian?--Lokyz 15:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I also made an impression that problem may lay in Lithuanian rather then sources. In other hand do we have a quote to Polish? M.K. 10:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Find me a biography of Piłsudski that doesn't mention he was Polish. In English.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Extend your further cognition and with WP:OWN. M.K. 13:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You wanted a reference and got a reference. "Davies" no less. And our own editor, Halibutt, has further elucidated with more evidence corraborating this issue. Dr. Dan 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Undoubtedly he was Polander (sorry for somewhat confusing form) - as he did participated in resurrecting that state. But we're talking about well known origins of his family, that he openly declared himself.--Lokyz 22:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt there is any Pole who knows anything about Piłsudski who is unaware that he came from a Polonized Lithuanian noble family. Polonization of their upper classes is something that some Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians cannot forgive or forget to this day.
It's not unusual for political leaders to come from foreign backgrounds. Napoleon was not French but Corsican; Lloyd-George was not English but Welsh; Hitler was not German but Austrian; Stalin was not Russian but Georgian; and so on. Nihil novi 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You're not quite right about forgiving, I'd rather say it's about not forgetting. anyway - this trend of antagonizing Polish vs Lithuania, or rather Polonised is NOT Lithuanian is born in the middle of 19 century, as the new "philological" understanding of a nation has taken over the civilizational approach - a nation is society that lives in a certain country. Philological version is mostly German invention, quite ironical though - as a means to separate themselves form francophonic German aristocracy.
Now about the forgiving/forgetting part - sadly Russian Empire's PR politics has done it's job. There was an approach taken be Ekaterine - that there are no Lithuanians in Lithuania, there are merely Russians misled by Poles, and this "fact" was repeated over and over again by Empire's court historians the whole century. I'm not going into the details right now, because I do not have much time at the moment. This hard ideology finally succeeded into separating Lithuanian gentry and Lithuanian people in the middle of 19th century, and was on the way to exterminated Lithuanians as such (see knygnešiai for an instance). The speed of de-Lithuanisation in the middle of 19th century was furious - it was then, as Vilnius region rural population stopped speaking Lithuanian. Further problems arose as the Lithuanian national revival became also a social movement, so the landowners were perceived as a "not good class". The 19th century is the Gordian knot of almost all Lithuanian-Polish relation problems, myths, hate and enemity. But this is a very long story, and it might be told, if someone would want to hear each others arguments. And finishing - from nowadays perspective Lithuanian nobility, despite partial Polonization is still a part of Lithuanian nation, and important part of Lithuanian history (or Lithuanian and Polish history, not only one of them).--Lokyz 09:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in reading more about this. If someone could write it up as an article or as a new section for an existing article, I would be happy to review it for English usage. Nihil novi 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Just out of morbid curiosity, anyone know who decided to divide up his body that way? Novickas 14:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Piłsudski willed his brain to science (in his youth, he had planned to become a physician, and his daughter Wanda became one, a psychiatrist). Given his devotion to his mother, he may well have willed that his heart be interred with her at the Rossa Cemetery, much as Chopin's heart had been placed in Warsaw's Holy Cross Church. The remainder of Piłsudski's earthly remains were deposited at Wawel presumably at the insistence of admirers who viewed him as a sort of latter-day Polish monarch. Nihil novi 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Nihil has pretty much got it right, and it was not unusual to want to analyze the "great" men's brain in the past century through dissection. Even Mussolini's brain was put through this "process" after the debacle at Milan. Dr. Dan 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
But there's a significant difference between the two wordings: the article says "his brain was donated to science" and Nihil says "he willed his brain to science". It would be interesting to see the actual document. Novickas 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Britannica states ([8]): "For many Poles Lithuania had become a part of their country. Others considered that, if the Lithuanians were to set up an independent state based on the principle of ethnic population, Vilnius—with its large Polish population—should become a part of Poland. The Polish head of state, Marshal Józef Pilsudski, who stemmed from a Polonized Lithuanian noble family, drove the Red Army out of Vilnius in April 1919." I wonder if using this article - without author, from an encyclopedia - would be as welcome for the fact about large Polish population in Wilno? I would like to see more - preferably Western academic - references for the fact that Pilsudski came from a polonized Lithuanian nobility. Majority of sources simply state he was Polish, after all - we should have something more then one encyclopedia article claiming differently.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Recent referenced information removal

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

Well, let's start one by one.
Lithuanian noblility - all right, Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries mention here that he was a "Polonized Lithuanian noble". However for example, [9] here Lerski clearly writes "a Polish noble family from Lithuania". Clearly, nobody denies Piłsudski's connections to Lithuania. But a claim that he is a "polonized Lithuanian noble" is not supported by most sources, who would usually use a formulation similar to Larski. I would suggest this should be discussed in biography section in detail and lead should contain a non-controversial formulation. "a [[szlachta|noble]] family with [[Lithuanian nobility|traditions]] dating back to the [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]]" was pretty stable and certainly doesn't hide his Lithuanian connections. Can't we agree to leave the lead at that?
"Piłsudski called Poland a nation of morons". The quote is offensive and out of context, and simply does not belong here.
-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, firstly you should present any evidence that majority of English sources uses your suggestions. M.K. 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Per WP:V, it is your extraordinary claim about him being "Polonized Lithuanian noble" that needs to be shown to be more than some fringe view. Britannica states " Polish revolutionary and statesman"; Columbia states "Polish general and politicia" (note that word Lithuania does not appear there at all); Encarta states " Polish revolutionary, independence fighter, and national hero,". This is the accepted view of him. We are the only encyclopedia that mentinons his Lithuania connections in lead - and I have no problem with that. But the version about his family being Poloznized Lithuanian nobility which appears in a tiny minority of sources (prove me wrong) belongs not in the lead, but in biography section (if anywhere at all).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So, "Born into a noble family" should be also eliminated as your presented sources do noy mention it either, or this is an exception? M.K. 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I can give you a citation from Urbanowicz and dozen of other sources for the noble family if you want. Are you disputing he was born into a noble family? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I also cam give you a dozen sources which call him Lithuanian noble (other LIth-POl nob.)[10], so can I include Lithuanian noble now? M.K. 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The biography includes the "polonized Lithuanian noble" claim. PS. And this claim is not even mentioned on Lithuanian wiki...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Just give it up. A google book search of "Pilsudski Lithuanian" turned up [11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17], and that's just the ones where the visible text clearly mentioned his Lithuanian ancestry, as opposed to the merely tantalizing ones and the evil pay-per-view references. Novickas 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Google play? Try "Pilsudski Polish", you will get several times more hits. On the other hand, you can get hits for Pilsudski + German / Russian / French and so on. Should we add those too? Sigh.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I mentioned that the above citations are those which directly mention his Lithuanian ancestry; you can check if you want. You could also rewrite the sentence to state the ancestry controversy; but let's limit ourselves to 3 references apiece. Novickas 01:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Any of those goes into details on that? Unfortunately Urbankowski doesn't. In any case, I hope we settled this, with the biography noting the difference in sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Back to the brute force and morons references from Davies - RFC. We are entitled to know the exact adjectives that Norman Davies applied to Pilsudksi's beliefs. Novickas 00:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Your knowledge is one thing, usage of controversial statements in encyclopedia is another matter. One can find plenty of quites from notable authors which should not be repeated here. And the reason for this is WP:NPOV. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
NPOV does not exclude attributed matter from notable sources; in fact it encourages that, as part of the process. Novickas 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And this is why we mention this theory in the biography section. What more do you want? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
We want to use Davies' own words, not your "strong hand" rewording. Novickas 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that? All right, here are the reasons for my objection: 1) citing entire sentence borders on copyvio, particularly as my version summarized his concept well enough 2) it is not clear that this is really relevant to the article ("Pilsudski believed that the world was ruled by...") - his beliefs on what the world is ruled are not that relevant to his disillusionment by democracy and 3) the word terror is is non-neutral, per WP:WTA and should be avoided if not necessary. There is certainly no consensus that Piłsudski's reign was a 'reign of terror', and its connotations with the dictators like Hitler of Stalin would only be misleading.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do not invent things, that citing entire sentence is copyright violation, especially when proper attribution is provided. Please stop WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach, especially then we have in article like these : Some years before his death Pilsudski, in a statement which epitomises the essence of modern Polish history, stated: “To be defeated and not yield is victory. To win and to rest on laurels is defeat”. ... Pilsudski’s vision of Poland, paradoxically, was never attained. He contributed immensely to the creation of a modern Polish state, to the preservation of Poland from the Soviet invasion, yet he failed to create the kind of multinational commonwealth, based on principles of social justice and ethnic tolerance, to which he aspired in his youth. One may wonder how relevant was his image of such a Poland in the age of nationalism.... M.K. 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If other editors agree, it may be reasonable to move this (and other quotations included in several citations) to Wikiquote.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Irpen, Piłsudski said and wrote a lot about many subjects. But this is not Wikiquote. Go ahead and add this quote to wikiquote:Józef Piłsudski. But it serves no purpose here, other than to offend. For the same reason, we don't cite Joseph Conrad's opinion of him ("He was the only great man to emerge on the scene during the [First World] war."). We don't quote other known sayings of him in which he was critical of Poland (there was one on rotten stone or one whether he should curse Poland after he dies, for example, or the one about why people in Poland walk on two, not four legs :>). Or perhaps the one which - loosely translated - is among my favourites: "Great nation, but its people are assholes". We don't cite him on religion ("Religion is for people without brains"); on Poland geography (baked torus) and so on.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, Pildsudski's views on religion are certainly offensive to the religious people. There is no reason to include them in the Religion article. However, if this article elaborated sufficiently on his religious views, such quote would have been warranted as it would inform the readers on Pilsudski's view on religion better than anything else. We are not writing the article with the purpose to offend anyone or to spare anyone from being offended. We are writing the articles to give the readers the best possible presentation on the article's subject. Pilsudski's low regards towards the nation he led is very notable. This is why Norman Davies gave this quote. Per your logic, Norman Davies also quoted this "with no purpose other than to offend Poles". --Irpen 02:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please find a reference which discusses Piłsudskis' attitude toward nations; than we may consider using it. Your interpretation of his quote and assertion of its notability is nothing but OR.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please formulate your request more legibly. What is that you want and why? Please also answer my question. Did Norman Davies quoted Pilsudski "with no purpose other than to offend Poles"? --Irpen 20:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Pilsudski was commonly known for rough language. He often would swear (constitution-prostitution), however, his words belong to Wikiquote, not here. BTW I must admit that I am flabbergasted. Some editors seem so keen on expanding pages describing Polish politicians, while articles about such personalities as Kazys Grinius or Antanas Merkys cry for an expansion. Not to mention Emmanuil Kviring or Leonid Melnikov, who still lack articles. So get to work, dear Lithuanians or Russians/Ukrainians Tymek 22:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the recommendation. In the meantime please remember that that P.P. has told us on many occasions that the respected English scholar and historian Norman Davies is quite a good source to use and quote. And furthermore, Halibutt has told us on this very talk page under the heading Pilsudski's Nationality #14 that the subject of Pilsudski's Lithuanian heritage has been discussed ad nauseum (or ad mortem defecatum as you say in Poland). If Davies tells us that Pilsudski's opinion of Poles is not flattering, but nonetheless true, and it is a referenced statement relevant to the article, it should and will stay. Furthermore the fact that Davies has written that Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture is quite relevant too. Or are we now "cherry picking" what we like out of Davies, and "dumping" what we don't like? Dr. Dan 22:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I am glad that you appreciate my advice, Dr. Dan. Norman Davies is in my opinion a very good source, and what I said was that the quotations belong to Wikiquote (I have no doubt that Pilsudski said so). As for Pilsudski's being Lithuanian. Well, in minds of Poles brought up in the XIX century, Lithuania was not regarded a separate country, but a province of Poland, same as Masovia or Little Poland (I know, Lithuanians do not like this, but it is a fact). Mickiewicz began "Pan Tadeusz" writing "Lithuania, my fatherland", and all Polish kids know this phrase. Anyway - greetings to all Lithuanians, Belarussians and Ukrainians, our Commonwealth was a great thing. Tymek 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you're not quite right here:) Nor Masovia neither Little Poland had Statutes of Lithuania that were used in Lithuania until 1831 (and in Volhynia too!), nor they have been equal partners in union of TWO nations. The Statute was evaluated as proof of distinctive nation by Tadeusz Czacki in his opus magna "O prawach...". So, well it's different story unlike Masovia.--Lokyz 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Lokyz, I just wrote about mentality of Poles in the XIXth century, not about legal matters, Masovia was a random example to prove my point. Anyway - arguing with Lithuanians is the last thing I desire. Like it or not - we share a lot of history together and all we can do is cooperate to describe it. I have a lot of respect for the Lithuanian nation and one day I must go there and see all the beautiful places including Kryziu Kalnas, where I would like to genuflect and pray for all the Lithuanian patriots Tymek 16:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Tymek, I understand this mentality quite well (maybe it still exists on WP in the XXIst century too, hope not), and you also need to understand that in the minds of many of Poland's partitioners in the XIX century that Poland was regarded as their own provinces (I also know that Poles do not like this either, but it is also a fact). Perhaps if Pan Tadeusz began with "Poland, my fatherland", one might not question Mickiewicz's own ethnicity. As for Pilsudski, his own statements regarding his origins, speak for themselves. And as I have mentioned before, there should be no shame that two of Poland's greatest leaders, Jogaila and Pilsudski were Lithuanians, even though both were Polonized as a result of their own choosing. And greetings back, while the Commonwealth may have been great thing, somebody made a real mess out of that great thing. I'm afraid that fact, more than anything else, caused the Lithuanians, Belarussians, and Ukrainians to say so long when the opportunity presented itself. Dr. Dan 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
All I can say is that I agree with you. Only Jogaila - he was not Polonized. To communicate with Poles, he used old Belarussian, both languages were (and still are) very similar. IMHO the Commonwealth collapsed after the Chmielnicki uprising, the Polish-Lithuanian Parliament was too late to recognize Ukrainians as equal partners. Too bad. Tymek 03:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Glad you agree. However, I do not feel that linguistic proficiency in a language is the only yardstick, or necessarily the most important one, as to whether someone is "ized" to another culture. But so as to not get entirely OT, the fact that the Dmowski element felt that Pilsudski was an alien amongst them, or that Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture, or that he called Poles a nation of morons, in relation to these matters, and that this information is referenced (with a very good source), suggests that the removal of this information is POV pushing. And that someone finds it to be disagreeable to them is not an acceptable reason to remove it. Also some lame assertion about ISBN numbers doesn't hold water, and the information will go back into the article as it is notable, important, and relevant. That it is unpleasant to some people's viewpoint, is not any reason to remove it. Perhaps you can restore it yourself. Dr. Dan 04:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to abandon this battle. The more I read about Pilsudski, the more overwhelming the evidence that a) he was Lithuanian, and b) his values were quite different from my own. This combination is depressing. Yes, the material belongs in here from the standpoint of presenting an accurate picture, but the motivation on my part to carry on the battle to keep it has gotten feeble.
An intelligent reader of this piece will notice its worshipful tone and be inclined to discount the article. Conflict: the desire to help make Wikipedia a good first reference for those seeking knowledge versus the not-so-wonderful desire to let this article as written speak for itself. Anyway, there's lots of other stuff to do on WP. Novickas 12:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Piłsudski's village?

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

I had in mind House of Piłsudski (as example House of Gediminas) in this context. That Piłsudski family (broader sense) originated from this village. And yes the Lithuanian place name gave name to the family itself, your objections is WP:OR in this extend I am afraid.M.K. 23:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
In that case, may I suggest creating an article on Piłsudski family or House of Piłsudski, and exploring the question of his family ethnicity, culture, and origin there? PS. Are you sure you spelled the village's name right? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in any publication indexed by Google.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So, do you intend to provide better formulated sentence about this issue? M.K. 11:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Obviously that not everything are placed in Google print. And I agree with Novickas that such information should be presented in this article. M.K. 17:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Pilsūdai as a place name turns up a fair amount of Google hits, if you include LT-language ones. "Pilsudai Pilsudski" turns up a few as well. Zinkevičius's notability is well established. Interesting, it looks as tho this issue has been discussed before and then faded away.
I just found this out myself, so must share. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): "Nationality - (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)" It's a great argument settler, for leads anyway, altho it seems to be applied only to the most high-profile of cases.
As far as deprecating Encyclopedia Brittanica's reference to him as a Polonized LT, along with Timothy Garton Ash's, etc., that can go in the RFC. Novickas 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pilsudski's nationality

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

Dr Dan, with due respect (somehow I have respect for you, as you seem to be the voice of reason). I will state again - Pilsudski considered himself a Pole above all, and like Mickiewicz, being Lithuanian was for him same as being Masovian or Kashubian. He was the product of the PLC, and I understand that Lithuanians want to have a share of this great person. However - with all his deeds he proved that being Lithuanian in the XX-th century sense meant nothing to him. He was brought up in the romantic spirit of the XIX century and one of his dreams was the return of the PLC. If you speak Polish, here is an interesting article published in the Tygodnik Wilenszczyzny - Polish weekly published in Lithuania [18]. However - stating that he was a Lithuanian statesman is an exaggeration. Here is what Encarta writes about him:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are not talking about revolutions, but revolutionaries. There is a slight difference. And Piłsudski is called revolutionary by many sources, starting with the Encarta article cited just above. And consider hpw Piłsudski entitled his memoires (Piłsudski, Józef, Darsie Rutherford Gillie, Joseph Pilsudski, the Memories of a Polish Revolutionary and Soldier). Here's a book ref for flavor: [19]. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
"Revolutionaries" create or participate in Revolutions, not train robberies and insurrections. You are right that there is a difference, but it's not as slight as you think.Dr. Dan 03:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Tymek has it pegged just right. Moreover:
George Washington's first American ancestor, John Washington, came to the Colonies from England in 1657. But encyclopedias don't put that into their lead and call him an "English-American President of the United States."
By the same token, it's fine to mention Piłsudski's Lithuanian heritage in a subsequent paragraph. Some Lithuanians may even be pleased, despite Piłsudski's seizure of largely-Polish-inhabited areas of Lithuania — much as some Polish-Americans seem to have taken perverse pride in Ted Kaczynski's Polish heritage, apparently on the principle that "any publicity is good publicity."
But there's no need to make a Lithuanian out of a Pole. Nihil novi 02:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Tymek, let me try to put this matter into some kind of perspective. I respect you too, and perhaps you will be able to have some future influence on the camarilla that has caused so much dissension amongst editors on W.P., in this "neck of the woods": (Belarus, former Czechoslovakia, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, to name a few parties involved). First and foremost, on the Pilsudski question, if you know your history, Poland was ruled from time to time by foreigners, Jogaila, Stephen Bathory, Henry III of France, Sigismund III Vasa, to name a few, and there is no shame in this fact (although there were a few incompentent losers in the mix). Calling Pilsudski a Lithuanian-Polish personage, is not a shame either, and it is a fact, even though it might offend some sensibilities. If you go to the Hitler article on WP you'll see him referred to a an "Austrian", which is true, and more correct than calling him a German (unless you are an ultra-Nationalist, expounding the virtues of Greater Germany or Miedzymorze). The other related issue is this recent attempt to "Polonize" Lithuanians (hate to use the term here) by the "modus vivendi seeking editor" at Karolina Proniewska (with a barrage of "sources" and "citations"). Although Polish Wiki calls her Lithuanian (Litewski Poeta), we are again getting what one Lithuanian contributor on WP calls the Great Polish Imperial Encyclopedia version on the nationality question. We saw it at Laurynas Gucevicius, Stanislaw Narutowicz, and any where else that "mind games" could be played. And while the Polish perspective was correct and patriotically driven, the oppostion was inventing a language in 1918 and presenting information that could not be backed up with sources "acceptable" (or with the wrong ISBN number) to the camarilla. Scholarly and respected historians like Norman Davies and Timothy Snyder have acknowleged Pilsudski origins, and do read Halibutt's aforementioned links on the matter. Please understand this is not a "bargaining chip". If you read the "edit histories" on these related matters you will better understand what the problem at hand, is. Maybe you will be able to shape and influence them in a less biased manner. I will look forward to discussing them further with you in the future. Best! Dr. Dan 02:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Btw, most encyclopdias don't call Jerzy Waszygton a "revolutionary" either. Dr. Dan 02:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Former revolutionaries and terrorists gain respectability when they become heads of state. Nihil novi 03:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
So Nihil, I'm trying to give the Naczelnik Panstwa some respectability. Dr. Dan 03:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Very decent of you. Some Interbellum (Polish) compatriots of his could never forgive his "banditry" at Bezdany. Nihil novi 03:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Dan, ultra-nationalists (from all involved countries) hated Międzymorze. And there is as of yet no Polish article on Proniewska.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad on K.P. On nationalists, I think especially, Domowski.Dr. Dan 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Dr Dan, Pilsudski had a choice, he chose Poland. You wrote same about Stanislaw Narutowicz, and that should settle it all. I gotta get some Lietuvska Degtine and drink to your health. Sveikas Tymek 03:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Tymek, many Lithuanians (including Pilsudski) chose Poland at half-time, at the end of the game most chose Lithuania. As to Pilsudski, you only understand him at half time. However the gates to his crypts at Wawel include the Vytis along with the White Eagle. Think about it. Look forward to having that degtine with you. Dr. Dan 03:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The Lithuanian Vytis is known in Poland as Pogoń ("Pursuit"). It appears as a symbol in various modern Polish settings, either alone or in conjunction with the Polish White Eagle, harking back to their joint appearance in armorials of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In such settings, to Poles "Pogoń" ("Vytis") is as much a Polish as a Lithuanian symbol. Nihil novi 08:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sure, nice try. And I suppose the sierp i młot is as much a Polish symbol too. The Vytis represents the Lithuanian aspect, or component if you prefer, of the PLC. Somehow it was deemed important enough to be placed on the gates of Pilsudski's crypt at Wawel. If the Vytis is to Poles as much a Polish symbol as the White Eagle, this is truly news to me. Dr. Dan 13:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Dan, did you take the trouble to look at "Pogoń"? What do you think the Polish "Pogoń" sports clubs were trying to express in calling themselves "Pogoń" — their Lithuaniophilia? If that had been the case, why didn't they call themselves "Vytis"?
There are other examples of Poles' use of the Lithuanian "Pogoń" emblem that are not mentioned in the "Pogoń" article, such as by Polish military-related associations and their periodicals.
I think that too much is news to a contributor who represents himself as an expert on matters Polish of which he knows little. Nihil novi 03:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Or as our Russian colleagues say, "Byez vadki nye razbiryosh." Nihil novi 04:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Anything that didn't form a part of his self-identity isn't relevant. Gene Nygaard 04:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!Dr. Dan 03:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that certain group of contributors removing person's in question ideas and remarks like a nation of morons when speaking about Poland. And "arguments" there quite silly, like that such sayings are controversial, so what? But this idea was delivered by person himself. Or another "argument" was that such direct quiting is on the brink of copyright violation (!), while one contributor posted here the whole copyrighted Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference info (look above). Another "argument" was "provided" that such "extensive" quoting is not good, but if we look at Winston Churchill article or current world's headline face Al Gore, we see extensive quoting. Interesting, M.K. 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
A few short quotations are not bad - when editors agree they are useful. When they disagree, they should not be added; encyclopedic articles rarely contain quotes anyway.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well when contributors disagree, they provide such thing as arguments, currently arguments were not provided, only speculations and excuses. I repeat my self, speculation that such quotes are not acceptable because their are controversial, well almost all life of Pilsudksi was controversial, I think, so we should not have an article about it too? Hmm, 11:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
A question. Since user MK mentioned my posting of the Encarta article about Pilsudski, I am wondering if it is acceptable to paste such info on the talk, together with the source. BTW, I have to admit that I am pleasantly surprised. I was not expecting this kind of behavior from user MK. Thank you for being so thoughtful, I appreciate it. Your politeness will save me from possible future problems. Tymek 13:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks dear Tymek for your kind words. I am ready to share some tips with you if you like. But lets back on topic, M.K. 15:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I will look forward to any tips. Still, I would like to know the answer to my question. As for his nationality - IMHO the best version would be "Pilsudski was a Polish statesman of Lithuanian descent". I emphasize - this is only my opinion. Tymek 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Your new suggestion is worth to consider, M.K. 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest clarifying that by Lithuania, we mean Grand Duchy of Lithuania. We can do it either via link piping or perhaps better - by saying: "Polish statesman whose family had origins in [[Grand Duchy of Lithuania]] [[szlachta|nobility]]".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, Tymek's suggestion above is small footstep towards a possible consensus. Regarding clarification, well we had it sadly some contributors for some reason deleted it. M.K. 11:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

I double checked Urbankowski; he clearly states that Stefan Fedak was a member of OUN. Btw, Polish wiki has an article on pl:Ukraiński zamach na Józefa Piłsudskiego, and both Polish and Ukrainian have an article on pl:Stepan Fedak (wojskowy)/uk:Федак-Смок Степан.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Just asking. The book by Hrushevsky and edited by someone else A History of Ukraine only calls him a student. I guess that doesn't mean he wasn't a member though, maybe I didn't look hard enough. Thanks for double checking. Ostap 01:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, considering dates of creation, Fedak was likely a member of Ukrainian Military Organization, not OUN.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That would make more sense, I am quite sure that the OUN was formed in 1929. I can't believe I missed that earlier. Thank you Piotus for clearing it up. Ostap 05:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Np. Of course Fedak most likely joined OUN later, when UMO was taken over by it. But in 1921 indeed there was simply no OUN.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am pretty sure he was in the OUN later. Thanks, one last question. Are you sure he was part of the UVO and not one of the other founding members of the OUN? Is it possible he was in one of the various nationalist student organizations that merged into OUN? I am away from any good sources, so I rely on you. Thanks, Ostap 05:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Replied on user's talk.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Issues

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

  • Dan, please elaborate the problem with the article's neutrality. The ethnicity issue is addressed in the first paragraph of the Early Life section: He was born into the szlachta (noble) Piłsudski family, who cherished Polish patriotic traditions;[3][4] a family that has been characterized either as Polish[5] or as Polonized-Lithuanian.[6] [a]. If you have a better solution for the problem please discuss it here. I am removing the neutrality tag as I do not see the discussion warrants it. Alex Bakharev 06:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Alex, look in Recent referenced information removal of Oct. 10th and below there are listed problems which are not solved at all. And there is no need to repeat a dozen times the same problems. I agree that this article have neutrality problems. M.K. 13:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Alex the ethnicity issue is not the problem. That Pilsudski called himself a Lithuanian "of Polish culture", has been well established by scholars like Norman Davies, and more importantly by Pilsudski himself on many occaisions. Whether his mother called him "Juozukas" or even "Ziutek", is not what the neutrality issue is about. It is about whether the article in its present state is a balanced one, and if sourced and referenced material by historians and scholars can be removed on a whim because of the unacceptable principle of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Can't explain it more simply than that. Dr. Dan 05:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox problems

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

New York Times excerpts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality Issues Again

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

Why don't you just compromise and say "Józef Piłsudski was born in 1867, in the village of Zalavas, at that time part of the Russian Empire (now in Lithuania)." That seems factual and to the point. If the reader has further interest in the city, he/she can go the that article. I agree with you that Polish toponyms are not needed in this case. That same issue with Russian names in Ukraine related articles is very annoying. But thats just my opinion, and I am only trying to help. Regards, Ostap (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Nihil novi (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Territories of GDL, particularly near Wilno, were often inhabited by Poles or even Belorusians. To claim a village was inhabited by Lithuanians - while more likely than not - needs a reference. PS. Piłsudski, as a noble, was born in his family mansion - and not in some peasant hut. I see no reason why the note on his family's mansion is being removed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Indeed, I pointed many other quotations he made, some quite negative, some quite positive, above. Interestingly, certain editors seem really insistent on adding this particular quote, and no other. I really wonder, why... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Quit wondering why Pilsudski thought Poles were morons or idiots. We can't ask him. Back to the topic, sure, these Poles migrated to Lithuania? I'm not making any claims about "inhabitants", or linguistics either. I'm refering to simple geography. Zalavas, or by any other name, was in Lithuania then, and is in Lithuania today. Quite simple. The rest is POV and is contributing to the article remaining in Non-Neutral limbo. As for Ostap's suggestions, yes they are reasonable, but any compromises must take all of the parties' opinions and edits into consideration. Other than the geographical dispute, there remains the nationality dispute. Two very established and respected English speaking scholars, Norman Davies and Timothy Snyder have concluded that Pilsudski was Polish-Lithuanian and have written as much in their prodigious writings. The "prokonsul" has repeatedly used their efforts when it suits his purposes, yet relegates their efforts aside when he finds them to be objectionable or "offensive" to him. Fortunately that is not how Wikipedia operates. This must be reviewed and a resolution must be implemented before the article can be placed as a featured article. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
AS far as simple historical geography goes, this was a Russian village - part of Russian Empire, Vilna Gubernya. Today it is of course Lithuanian. But since it was first mentioned (and likely founded) in the 17th century, when it was part of the PLC, the proper historical adjective would be Polish - just as villages near Warssa are not commonly called Masovian, or those around Kraków, Little Polish. Nonetheless to avoid confusion, per comments of other editors, we should not use adjectives which today mean something quite different than in the past.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
More nonsense? According to this argument, Pilsudski is neither Polish or Lithuanian, but Russian, and the entire article would have to reflect this. But then again your entire group has wasted immense resources and time trying to make Lithuania a "province" of Poland on English Wikipedia, and to make any Lithuanian associated with Poland to be either Polish or "Polish-Lithuanian". With the exception of Pilsudski of course. Dr. Dan (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I never was any good at dispute resolution... I see your point, why not "born in Zalavas, Lithuania (then RE)?" That would be factual, and certainly wouldn't imply Polish nationality. I have no opinion or knowledge about his nationality, just want to clear up his birthplace. Ostap (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Almost all sources - and common sense - agree that Piłsudski was Polish. So attempts to push an undue point of view that he wasn't should not be endorsed easily. Besides, in 19th century there was no political entity known as Lithuania.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Who was talking about a "political entity"? The scholars Norman Davies and Timothy Snyder both call Pilsudski a Polish-Lithuanian. Is your contrary "opinion" qualified to override two English speaking, and certainly neutral and respected historians? Pilsudski and his parents were born in Lithuania. His mother died and was buried there. If Zalavas was not in Lithuania, and the people born there were not Lithuanians, one would have to conclude that they were Russian (according to your POV) because it was part of the Russian Empire. The reason it was by definition an Empire, was because it was comprised of many different nationalities, (as was the Soviet Union) and not all of its inhabitants were Russians. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, until you agree to allow this article to resemble a neutral, fair, and encyclopedic type of an article, the matter needs to be reviewed and your biased edits and reverts, need to be also reviewed. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Until you understand that Lithuanishness of Piłsudski is different from Lithuanishness of modern ethnic Lithuanians, your edits will not be helpful. Oh, and do read WP:CITE.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand the difference perfectly. Neither I, nor Norman Davies, or Timothy Snyder call him a Polish-Lithuanian because we equate modern Lithuania with the Lithuania he was born in. Nonetheless both are Lithuania inspite of many differences. Greenland in AD 984 is not the same as it is today either, but it is still Greenland. Is that clear? I'm also sure Norman Davies' statement that "Pilsudski considered himself a Lithuanian of Polish culture" doesn't require you to interpret it's meaning. Every reader can determine that for themselves. As for WP:CITE and WP:NEUTRALITY you have violated both the spirit and letter of the rules on both with your edits and your repeated reverts, causing the article to need closer scrutiny. That's O.K. with me. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Quite true. And the article recognizes this, with both of the current notes addressing this issue. I like the above quote from Oleksa (nomen omen Pidlutskyi); do we want to add it to link to litvin? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Irpen, and I agree with P.K. aka P.P., that the quote is quite true. Is it correct that "Litvin" (Cyrillic of course) in Ukrainian means Lithuanian, just as "Litwin" is the Polish word for Lithuanian? I think that they are both pronounced similiarly too. Irpen, would that be correct? Dr. Dan (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and a cognate of "Litvin" and "Litwin" is "Litvak" ("Lithuanian Jew"). What's your point? Nihil novi (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Nihil. Let's leave the cognates out of my question to Irpen. The question was directed to him, and please allow him to answer it. If he's too busy at the moment, I can wait a bit. Please be patient, and I will make my point at that time. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

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

Could you please draw up a "Praise" section? Nihil novi (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe criticism and praise should be incorporated into existing article structure, as they for the most part already were before this section was added.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point. Why not, then, simply cannibalize this new "Criticism" section for any usable information and sources, then close this section? Nihil novi (talk) 04:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Simply, because I didn't have time for that yet. Perhaps you could do it? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 05:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a technical note: Several of the links in the references are messed up, while some of the refs are not in standard, complete form. I fixed a couple of those refs (not a totally trivial task, especially since I was fighting against constant edit conflicts!), but more needs to be done, especially since this is being considered for FA. Cheers— Turgidson (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

On Fascism

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

See my explanation here. He was a dicator, and his government was quite authoritarian. He was not a facist, as not each dictator is a facist. There is enough scholarly ref discussing this in detail, per diffs in my linked post.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I re-read your explanation for the third time. This "opinion" from your source, is interesting but I'm afraid way off the mark from virtually every other interpretation of history. So Franco's Spain was not Fascist too? Anyway, rather than uselessly debate the issue with you, perhaps you'd be so kind and answer my question. How should we characterize his political ideology? Dr. Dan 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Piłsudski was a Polish original. If we must seek comparisons, in many ways he was a 20th-century Polish Oliver Cromwell. Was Cromwell a fascist? Nihil novi 22:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
What does Cromwell have to do with my question? Or Julius Caesar or Rafael Leonidas Trujillo y Molina? How should we characterize Pilsudski's ideology? Dr. Dan 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
He was a pragmatist with a strong aversion to mendacity and corruption in politics; who contributed substantially to the restoration of his country's independence; and who sought to bolster its chances of survival by creating a Central European federation (Międzymorze) and by divesting the Russian Empire and Soviet Union of their non-Russian holdings (his Prometheist program). In conceiving the latter two programs, and in anticipating correctly the general course of an impending World War I, he showed himself a major political visionary. Nihil novi 23:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence says Matthew N. Lyons [20]. According to this definition Piłsudzki was a long way from fascism.Xx236 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Do you mean my own one (definition)? I'd rather leave the writing of "original research" to you. Btw, I did take offense to your denigrating Soviet Academicians. I am by no means an apologist for the Soviet Union, or the United States (both nations have their own history to deal with). But the accomplishments of the Soviet Union were on many occassions exemplary, and your insult to Soviet Academicians was uncalled for. I read all "Academicians" through an objective "filter". Try doing it with Polish Academicians, especially when dealing with Pilsudski cult of personality promugators. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I have a feeling that some how neither Mussolini or Hitler expressed condolences or sent a delegation to the funeral of Kirov a half a year earlier. Dr. Dan 03:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

For the record, put it into the article then. I have no objection to using Norman Davies' as a source or reference in this article. As long as it's not done selectively. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. It's a good quote. Nihil novi (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Franco's Spain

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

Xx236 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I'm a tad busy right now, Xx236, but when I have time I'll go to the Mussolini article and try to prove he was a fascist, first. I hope I meet less resistance, and better arguments, if and when I do. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, proving that white is white goes much easier on Wiki than proving that black is white. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right about that. Unfortunately for me, you have a lot more time to do things like that, than I have. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
And Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I seriously hope that you do not think Franco and the Falange were not fascist too. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what, why don't you add the note about facism to article about F and F, and we will see how it goes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Juozukas aka Wictor

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

POV issues

  • Pilsudksi's "dream of federation" was perceived by Poland's neighbors as imperialism. Think about it.
  • This is noted here (the plan was met by opposition from most of the intended members – who refused to compromise on their hard fought autonomy - as well as from the Allied powers) and discussed in detail in Międzymorze article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The military venture into the Ukraine as far as Kiev - very controversial idea. Mentioned by Edward Hallett Carr as a crucial issue in Poland's fate during and after WWII; that mention was deleted.
  • One of Poland's interwar problems, stemming from its territorial gains beyond what was approved by the Allies, was the inclusion of populations that were not ethnically Polish. They needed a lot of policing. Mentioned as extremist opposition only.
  • The article mentions that the ethnic minorities formed almost a third of the Second Republic's population and discusses the deteriorating situation after his death. Pilsudski's role is discussed; he was a stabilizing factor.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Minor issue, P. had many opponents (and supporters); if we wanted to mention every one and where they agreed or disagreed with P. this would be a book, not an article. It was moved to the article about the cardinal, Adam Stefan Sapieha.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ethnicity. Brittanica's description of P. as Polonized Lithuanian, rather than Polish-Lithuanian, was deleted.
  • There are many descriptions of P. ethnicity; most of them simply mention he was Polish. The Lithuanian aspect is discussed in 'early life' and a dedicated note, Britannica was removed as we have better (scholarly books) references.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Criticism. Had Piotrus' edit summary stated that the section was being merged, I would not have reverted, nor, I presume, would Irpen. In any case no consensus was reached about this action. This is not what I would call a collaborative workover of an FAC article.
  • Characterization of his government - very brief as it stands. There is a lot of material to sift through; variously described as a military dictatorship, fascist, quasi-fascist, authoritarian, etc. This is difficult, I realize, and will require a lot of co-operative discussion. But it has been done at other articles.
  • Legacy. As mentioned on the FAC page, this is a hot issue.
  • Possible overuse of non-critical Polish sources, esp. Urbanowski, apart from those necessary for details.
  • Do you have a review that would describe Urbanowski's work as 'non-critical'? Or more up to the point, are there any parts of the current article, referenced with U., that you think are not-neutral and should be examined more closely? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Playing's devil advocate, that Poland's neighbors were wrong doesn't change the factual accuracy of the above statement (assumuing it can be referenced, the term imperialism is not neutral, but I would think it shouldn't be that far off from what they were thinking).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it can be referenced and IMO should be mentioned that this was how Poland's neighbors perceived it then [21], it's how a number of Allied diplomats saw it, same ref, and that it is how Orlando Figes described it in the 1990s in A People's Tragedy. Novickas (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved POV Issues

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

  • Halibutt: Pilsudski stated himself that he was Lithuanian.
  • Halibutt: As to Pilsudski claiming he was Lithuanian, there's a lot of such remarks in his works.
  • Halibutt: Once he (Pilsudski presumably) said that Lithuanian is the best version of a Pole. On other ocassions he stated Poland is like a donut - empty in the middle (Katowice maybe, nah more like Lodz?) and sweet along the rims.
  • Halibutt: Imagine the faces of Dmowski's nationalists when he stated he's (again presumably Pilsudski), Lithuanian in the Polish Sejm.
  • Halibutt: Almost any biographical note mentions he was Polish-Lithuanian "(much like Czeslaw Milosz, Adam Mickiewicz, and many, many, more people)".

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

It was discussed above, and as a result we have added a note on his nationality to the article. Not to reiterate old discussions ad naueseum, there are many more sources which claim that P. was only Polish than Polish-Lithuanian. Compare Britannica with Columbia and Encarta. Note that even Britannica doesn't call him Lithuanian in their lead ([22]). As confusing as Britannica can be, he is also called just "Polish" here. Is it a simplification? Of course. Do we discuss it in the article? Yes. So what's the problem? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
For starts, the problem is that you, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, selectively use sources like Norman Davies when it suits your POV, and reject them when it does not. Interestingly you chose not to address any other of the comments. What about Halibutt's comments and links, for example. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Selective quoting indeed. I wonder how long one has to search for those few works which while discussing P. nationality use the adjective Lithuanian; after all as can be easily seen most don't. Nonetheless I agree that those few certainly make a valid point, and this is why we go into the details of his ethnicity in a dedicated note. Nonetheless in majority of context Davies (and practically everyone else writing about P.) use the adjective Polish. For example in his work on history of Europe, here (p.925), he uses only the adjective "Polish". And when he goes into those details in God's Playground, he writes (p.40) He was born in Lithuania, and lived most of his early life in Wilno. He was the second son of an old Polish family. Since this was discussed again and again, and since you have resolved to more personal attacks, accusing me of "selective quoting" and such (instead, for example, of presenting your own arguments backed by references), it's EOT for me. PS. One final note: Lithuanian Wikipedia's article states that he was Polish (Lenkijos), not Polish-Lithuanian (Lenkijos-Lietuvos), too. There is something about being more holy than the Pope, you know...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest to stop original research? Or do you learn Lithuanian langugae? M.K. (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Get serious, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Have we gotten to so low a nadir that any dissagreement with you, is construed by you to be "more personal attacks"? Yes, you have used "selective quoting" in your use of the historian Norman Davies, and have done so often. Regarding your remark, instead of presenting your own arguments backed by references: Ironically, some of the edits and contributions of mine that were reverted by you, were in fact referenced with Davies as the source. Get to work on this article and stop playing games. It seems your new efforts at the Żeligowski Mutiny article demonstate that you are hell-bent in creating more dissension and ill will between editors, by more non-neutral and biased editing. Please attempt to be more compromising and co-operative. Please desist from accusing people of making personal attacks, when there aren't any. I have to deal with enough of this kind of "thought" processes and behavior at the clinic where I work, without having to deal with it here on WP. As for the remark, "There is something about being more holy than the Pope, you know", I have no doubt that you believe you have great expertise on the Papacy, on proconsuls, and similar matters. Actually I beginning to wonder why you didn't choose, "Pontifex Maximus", for your sobriquet instead of "Prokonsul". Dr. Dan (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Are the last two sentences a forced attempt at humor, or merely more baiting and ad-hominem attack? Nihil novi (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Which one of us are you addressing? I'm not sure because, you N.N., often jump into to these discussions with a side comment. Rarely do they address any substantive part of the discussion either. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Piłsudski as seen in Lithuania

I wonder if we should add a little more about it. A few day ago a Lithuanian newspaper ("Veidas") published a rather critical piece stating that "Piłsudski was the chief opponent of Lithuanian independence" (here are Polish media articles discussing this publication: [23], [24]; I am sure one of our Lithuanian collegues can link the original L. piece); the article further piles on Piłsudski that he was "poorly educated... anti-social... arrogant"... "hated democracy"..."damaged Lithuania"). Interestingly, two years ago that same newspaper published a much more moderate piece (discussed here and translated into Polish here) by Jonas Rudokas on 25 08 2005 that argued that Piłsudski "defended both Poland and Lithuanian from Soviet domination". What's interesting is that such a view is supported by quite a few scholars arguing that Piłsudski's actions in fact guaranteed Lithuanian's independence: in addition to Polish media (ex. [25]) see Polish historian Piotr Łossowski in his Konflikt polsko-litewski... (p.132-133), but also Lithuanian historian Antanas Ruksa (Kovos del Lietuvos nepriklausomybes, t.3, p.417) or (also Lithuanian?) Alfred E. Senn (Lietuvos valstybes... p. 163). Senn wrote: If the Poles didn't stop the Soviet attack, Lithuania would fell to the Soviets... Polish victory costs the Lithuanians the city of Wilno, but saved Lithuania itself. Ruksa wrote: In summer 1920 Russia was working on a communist revolution in Lithuania... From this disaster Lithuania was saved by the miracle at Vistula. I do wonder if latest Veidas editorial stance represents the minority or current majority of Lithuanian POV. How is P. portrayed in modern Lithuanian publications? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well according to some, modern Lithuanian scholarly opinion is fantasy, referencing "moon is made out of green cheese" does not make it true and similar.M.K. (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

More from Senna:

  • Alfred Erich Senn, The Formation of the Lithuanian Foreign Office, 1918-1921, Slavic Review, Vol. 21, No. 3. (Sep., 1962), pp. 500-507.: "A Bolshevik victory over the Poles would have certainly meant a move by the Lithuanian communists, backed by the Red Army, to overthrow the Lithuanian nationalist government... Kaunas, in effect, paid for its independence with the loss of Vilna."

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some historic context issues

The section dealing with Poland in the immediate wake of WWI doesn't mention that the Allies had decided to make Poland a state. A sentence or two would do. The Locarno treaties are described as appeasement - please rephrase this; some Poles apparently felt that way, but its authors won a Nobel Peace Prize. With regard to the Polish-Soviet War: the statement that western powers "urged Poland to surrender and engage in negotiations". Contradictory, pls clarify. Novickas (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Added a note on Little Treaty of Versailles‎ to note the Allied influence. Locarno - it is noted that this is how P. felt about them, of course his view is only one of many. How would you suggested to rephrase it? Regarding "urged Poland to surrender and engage in negotiations" I don' see what's contradictory about that sentence? Do note that surrender does not exclude subsequent negotiations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Statehood timeline. The Allies had decided to create Poland as a state at some point in late 1917 or early 1918 - it's in the Fourteen Points (January 1918), and they issued a joint public statement to that effect in, I think, June 1918. The usual explanation is their perceived need for a buffer state between Russia and Germany.

The surrender sentence - "The Entente pressured Poland to surrender" during the Polish-Soviet War. The advice to surrender is attributed to the Entente two years after the Armistice. Could you be more specific about who urged the surrender of what, and what terms were suggested.

Locarno - as currently phrased "he was disappointed by the French and British policy of appeasement evident in those countries' signing of the Locarno Treaties". This is stating his perception of the treaties as fact. You could rephrase this as "P., along with x, saw the Locarno Treaties as appeasement of x, since ...".

"In the West for a long time a myth persisted that it was General Maxime Weygand of the French military mission to Poland who had saved Poland." The use of the word myth here is not appropriate by most definitions. How about something like "the prevailing interpretation". Novickas (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Polish statehood, it's a fascinating question, but one not that relevant here. We may create a separate article for it, or update the poor Second Polish Republic or History of Poland (1918-1939) with that. Regarding Entente, I will look in Urbanowski to verify he indeed uses the Entente, I am not sure if we have rooms for the details here (perhaps in Polish-Soviet War in 1920?). Regarding Locarno, I am confused by your "x". The myth is the word commonly used in this context; I am not insisting on it but it is referenced and seems short and precise. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the statehood decisions are not relevant, since the article emphasizes his role in Poland's independence, and the Allied statements and stances on this decision are an important aspect of WWI historic context. Locarno - again, its authors won a Nobel Peace Prize, so the direct statement that it was appeasement is inappropriate; it is not a statement of fact - it's an interpretation. Novickas (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Many factors led to Polish independence. This article is about Piłsudski and discusses his role in it. Seems perfectly logical to me. Neither it is an article about Locarno. Pilsudski's views are not in Locarno article; neither should not-Piłsudski's views on Locarno be added here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually the only "state" Poles could dream on getting from Entente was return of Congress Poland within Russian Empire with Malopolska, Wielkopolska and parts of Silesia attached.--Molobo (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See this publication for arguments that Piłsudski did more to reestabilish independent Poland than Dmowski at Versailles.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Encarta ref

Would it be possible to find an alternative to the single Encarta reference? It looks rather out of place in a featured article candidate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be that difficult. Although going into details would be problematic; as far as I remember Urbankowski we don't know what Piłsudski know; nobody ever said he knew anything other than that his brother and his friends were involved in something that they needed to gather explosives/weapons for and held secret meetings.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removing Michnik ref

I don't find anything meriting putting Michinik among 'prominent modern critics of Piłsudski' in here. That he agrees with P. antagonist with regards to his later phase of the careers is balanced, for example, by his praise of P. on the previous pages ([26]). Michnik perhaps best represents mixed feelings Piłsudski invokes in many - he praises him for his pre-1926 deeds and criticizes for post-1926 ones. Interesting, but we cannot claim he was 'anti-Piłsudski' based on a selective reading of his essay (i.e. reading just the cons).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't claim that he was anti-Pilsudski - just that he has critized him and his legacy, as was stated and referenced. Novickas (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
But he has also praised P. and his legacy. Will you add that too? And what point will this serve? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Davies ref

The following seems to me wrongly placed:

According to historian Norman Davies, Piłsudski believed in government by a strong hand. <note Norman Davies. 1984: Heart of Europe: A Short History of Poland. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-285152-7. Page 140: "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."<end note>

It is placed, rather awkwardly, in the beginning passages of the coup section. But Davies makes this observation in the context of 1919, as part of a contrast between Pilsudski and Dmowski. The description is retrospective, referring to the way Pilsudski had done things in the army. In my opinion, it should go in the paragraph beginning "Piłsudski often clashed with Dmowski...". And for it to make sense in the way Davies intended, it should form an antithesis with what Dmowski believed. qp10qp (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I was sure I corrected this few weeks ago but it must have slipped back; I rewrote it to address this issue. Everyone agrees Piłsudski believed in the government of the strong hand, and we can find plenty of refs for that. No need to attribute this to Davies or quote him extensively on what is a non-controversial claim. PS. Feel free to tweak it further, I agree it may make an interesting comparison with Dmowski.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Lets see what others think. For me, the quote is worth noting in the earlier context, in contrast to Dmowski's approach. But after the coup, Pilsudski seems to have muddled by rather than rule with an iron fist, though his regime became more repressive with time (yes I have started to read one or two things: the FAC badly needs some fresh eyes). qp10qp (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
New eyes are much welcomed. As discussed above, the reasons not to include the quote are two fold: 1) manual of style and 2) neutrality (out-of-context terror claim).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I think having the full quote in the main text might be intrusive; certainly it would be misleading without the Dmowski part that goes with it (in other words, it cannot be taken as a general comment on Pilsudski, only as one made in a specific context). On quotes, we differ, as we did before: nothing wrong with a good quote here and there, in my opinion. In this case, though, the quote could go in the note, or a paraphrase of it in the article. The context for Pilsudski's faith in terroristic acts would be early in the century, when he chose the more extreme of the PPS factions that resisted Russian imperialism by fair means or foul. It is to this that Davies is referring restrospectively when he assesses the background Pilsudski brought to the table in the later partnership with Dmowski. No one need assume that this means Pilsudski actually chose to govern by terror, though there were lethal repressions in Galicia. Many leaders, including Mandela, have come to power after using terror tactics as rebels. qp10qp (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Q - please read the Bereza Kartuska detention camp article and its talk page - the Library of COngress classifies it as a concentration camp, and it was established by order of P in 1934. Novickas (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Clarify wlink to article and P's responsibility. Novickas (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The article makes clear he did brutal things, including sanctioning brutal camps. But he was not ruling by terror. If he was, there would not have been any parliament at all. In fact, he was given the run around a lot of the time and presided over a mishmash of parliamentary and dictatorial styles. qp10qp (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This seems off topic to this discussion, but the fact is your request to move that article to "BK concentration camp" was rejected by the majority of involved editors. Q, as for the word terror, I believe that per WP:WTA we should be careful with it: certainly bojówki were no more a terrorist organization than OUN - and calling that one "terrorist" is not uncontroversial (see discussion). We mention that bojówki carried assassinations and such; no need to stretch modern definitions to historical issues, particularly remembering that "One man's terrorist...". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
True, but you know me, Piotrus: I am not going to say something like that without looking it up first. Other neutral sources than Davies use the word "terror" in this context. Therefore there are no grounds for leaving it out of the article. qp10qp (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's focus on one thing: are we discussing the merits of including this specific quote (I don't think it is particularly valuable and somewhat controversial) or are we discussing whether we should include the word terror or terrorism in the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think "terrorist" is a word to avoid, and somewhat anachronistic. The word "terror" however, is perfectly normal: it is an aspect of war. Many British bombing campagns in the 2nd WW were intended to cause terror, for example.

My original point was only to suggest moving the sentence in question, but I sensed you were against the point altogether. This is a significant matter worth discussing now in relation to the FAC. With this legitimate word included, who could accuse the article of being too forgiving of Pilsudski? qp10qp (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing this first at the bojówki subarticle. Surely we should not include it here if it is not included there :) If we can find a clear, scholarly refs that states that one of bojówki goals was to create terror among Russian occupies, I will be happy to see it added to the artic;e; in my reading on that issue I have however not found such a statement (at least, not a one I can recall now; it might have been a goal - but a minor one, I'd think - and likely a too minor one to include outside of a subarticle). I certainly hope that the issue of relevance this word to this article is not important enough to be reflected in the FAC discussion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Differences in tactical matters also came to the fore at the congress, and whereas the moderates resolved not to implement terrorist methods in any form, the radical nationalists, who included in their ranks most members of the Bojowka, headed by Josef Pilsudski (future head of the Polish state), advocated the extensive use of terror and expropriation for the purpose of disorganizing and weakening Russian imperial authority in Poland." A. Geifman, Thou Shalt Kill: Revolutionary Terrorism in Russia, 1894–1917, Princeton University Press, 1996, page 27. qp10qp (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. But correct me if I am wrong - nobody has insisted on adding this to the article with regards to FA, did they? Can I ask you for an input here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they did insist on having the Norman Davies quote in, which covers the same point. I believe this is a key issue for proving that the article intends to describe Pilsudski, warts and all. In my opinion, there is nothing unlikely in it, since resistance groups often use these tactics. This doesn't mean that Pilsudski ruled systematically by terror when in power, because he didn't (though there were brutal repressions). (His government was a muddled affair in which he was rarely able to dominate, it seems to me.) He was not like Hitler or Mussolini—more equivalent to someone like Éamon de Valera, in my opinion (though not politically). Therefore I would not agree to using references such as the Davies quote or the one above as a general description of Pilsudski: they refer to a specific time of his life when he was in rebellion. I believe the point should be added to the article in that context. qp10qp (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved in the article about the OUN that you link to, but the comparison is a good one. As a Pole, it is hard for you to believe that someone who acted on behalf of your people could have endorsed acts of terror; but it is straightforward for you to accept that those who acted that way against Polish people were terrorists. This is normal: we British hate the IRA and cannot even contemplate the possibility that they believed they were engaging in effective acts of war against our rule; on the other hand, we brush under the carpet acts of British terror such as deliberately bombing urban areas during World War II to undermine the the German people's spirit. But for Wikipedia, we must swallow some salt and use the judgements of historians for balance. qp10qp (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Q, I'm really glad you're here. Novickas (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dmowski - Blue Army - Danzig... so what?

At the end of the 'Rebuilding Poland' chapter we have a strange sentence: Piłsudski often clashed with Dmowski, at variance with the latter's vision of the Poles as the dominant nationality in renascent Poland, and irked by Dmowski's attempt to send the Blue Army to Poland through Danzig, Germany (now Gdańsk, Poland). The first part is fine, but the underlined one makes little sense: why would P. be irked by that? This needs to be expanded or cut (and even if expanded, we may consider Blue Army as a better place for this). The first part of the sentence should probably be moved two paragraphs down, where it can be nicely merged with the introduction of P. Międzymorze concept.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If there are no comments or objections, I will remove this shortly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Minorities paragraph

A number of sources paint a different picture. From [27] "The upshot, by 1921, was a Poland one-third of whose population consisted of non-Poles, many of whom felt bitterly alienated from a state that had forcibly incorporated them into itself." Problem attributed to what the author refers to as his conquests. A sentence from Leslie: [28] "Relations with the national minorities were not good." From [29] "This led to the suppression of several national minorities in Poland, not just the Ukrainians." From [30] "...interwar Poland became a national entity existing within an international state characterized by increasingly antagonistic relations with its restless minorities" and "As the Polish historian Andrzej Garlicki aptly noted, it is a historic irony that it was Pilsudski the federalist who implemented Dmowski's program of minority incorporation". BTW I always check a book's reputation by clicking on the About This Book tab in Google Print; these books all show at least one scholarly review, or were published by a reputable press, Leslie's by Cambridge. There is one generally accepted point: he was not personally anti-Semitic and refused to implement such policies, unusual for that time and region. Although his successors were and did, which is part of his legacy, since there is a general agreement that they were his friends and co-Legionnaires.

So how to rewrite this paragraph? Novickas (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember this is an article about Piłsudski, not about the state of Second Polish Republic nor minorities in it. That said, you are right to point out Piłsudski was unusually tolerant, compared both to an average Polish contemporary politician - or any average politician from another European country. And yes, his successors were much worse. I believe all of those issues are mentioned in the article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Novickas, you can see that the paragraph reflects all the points you make. Why would it need rewriting? It balances the view that Pilsudski was positive to the minorities with the fact the situation was bad. Both these points are well supported by historians and so the paragraph is neutral in reflecting both of them. The issue is a matter of debate, and so the paragraph reflects that. This is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Between us, you, me, and Piotrus have read a great deal about that matter; I think all three of us know that the paragraph has to present the two sides of the story, and not just one.qp10qp (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is the paragraph as it stands now: "Piłsudski's regime began a period of national stabilization and improvements in the situation of ethnic minorities, which formed almost a third of the Second Republic's population. Piłsudski replaced the National Democrats' "ethnic-assimilation" with a "state-assimilation" policy: citizens were judged by their loyalty to the state, not by their nationality.The years 1926–35, and Piłsudski himself, were favorably viewed by many Polish Jews, whose situation improved, especially under the Piłsudski-appointed prime minister Kazimierz Bartel. However, a combination of developments, from the Great Depression to the vicious spiral of OUN terrorist attacks and government pacifications, caused government relations with the national minorities to deteriorate. Unrest among national minorities was also related to foreign policy. Troubles followed the suppression of eastern Galicia, in which nearly 1,800 people were arrested. Tension also arose between the government and the German minority, particularly in Upper Silesia. The government did not give way to calls for antisemitic measures; but the Jews grew discontented for economic reasons connected to the depression. Overall, by the end of Pilsudski's life, his government's relations with national minorities were increasingly problematic."
But Roshwald formulates the problem this way: it was Pilsudski's military acquisitions that led to the additional incorporation of minorities to begin with. And on this page he speaks of these military actions as creating a climate of conquest in which the 2nd Republic did not feel the need to negotiate with the minorities, and that they were denied political space, and that he will discuss this legacy in a later chapter - I don't have the book at hand. I know the "related to foreign policy" is from Leslie, but I don't know what he means there - parts of Galicia were in Poland during this time, could Q or someone explain what he's getting at -otherwise this sentence stands in isolation to what is otherwise a discussion of internal policies. So when was this stabilization period? 1926 - 1930, maybe? How does it relate to the "pacifications" of the Ukrainians, which seem to have begun in 1931? We may have read a fair amount, but I won't feel comfortable about it until Irpen weighs in. The sentence "Piłsudski replaced the National Democrats' "ethnic-assimilation" with a "state-assimilation" policy" is contradicted by Roshvald's "it is a historic irony that it was Pilsudski the federalist who implemented Dmowski's program of minority incorporation". Reasons for rewrite. Also, per I-don't-like-it, I don't like the Jews-were-discontented-because-of-the-Depression phrasing, even if it is from Leslie. It seems more fair - to me - to word it more closely to the Wiesenthal foundation's formulation of the P regime. More later. Novickas (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Piłsudski did not want "military acquisitions that would lead to incorporation of ethnic minorities into Poland". He was fighting for free Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus - ones that would join his Międzymorze. This is why he did not conquer entire Lithuania although he could have had easily (other Polish commanders suggest this to him and he rejected this idea several times, arguing that Poles and Lithuania should be friends, and you cannot build relationships on conquest); in fact he has significantly contributed to Lithuania's independent existence (see my post above). This is why he criticized Peace of Riga and apologized to the Ukrainians - after endecja gave up part of what he conquered and kept the rest for Poland, rejecting the idea of the federation or independent Ukraine or Belarus, this is why he said (explaining the need for Kiev Operation) that "Without independent Ukraine there can be no independent Poland" ([31]) and (shortly before his death, around the time of the Holodomor) "My life is lost. I failed to create a free Ukraine" ([32]). PS. Further, you are ignoring the points that the more general issues are off-topic to this article and in any case, not out of ordinary for that time and place. Piotrowski for example wrote about Polish government treatment of minorities: "As always, the seriousness of such practices needs to be assessed from a comparative contemporaneous perspective, not from the vantage point of our own times. Suffice it to say, such practices, and much worse, were often the norm throughout Europe of that day." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's another interesting quote, from Joseph Rothschild: "It must be acknowledged that even a rich and long-established state —and interwar Poland was neither—might well have been baffled by the staggering problems presented by her ethnic minorities: their number, their size, their recalcitrance, their external support, and. in the eastern regions, their poverty. Poland was doubly handicapped by having simultaneously to cope with the integration of the long-severed parts of the Polish state-nation as she vainly sought for a consistent and feasible approach toward the minority problem. Her search for a solution was fatefully compromised by the apparent incompatibility between her frontiers and her institutions. Piłsudski's military efforts had incorporated non-Polish populations whom Dmowski's domestic arrangements could not digest. he Right, which by the 1930s had ideologically saturated Polish society, viewed all expressions of nationalism on the part of minorities as treasonable and to be stifled. Believing that the old quasi- federalistic commonwealth had too long been suicidally indulgent toward the non-Polish and non-Catholic populations, the Right insisted that restored Poland either assimilate or expel her minorities. But they were too numerous, already too conscious, and still too rooted for either of these alternatives to be practicable at the time. They were simply alienated by the whole sterile paraphernalia of discriminatory devices which this program entailed: skewed census tabulation, boycott, numerus clausus, colonization, biased land reform, prejudicial tax assessment, and violence."--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removing Miłosz ref

Similar as with Michnik ref above, the claim that Miłosz criticized Pilsudski is only a half truth. Sure, Miłosz wrote that he was a "man of whim and resentments", "founded a concentration camp" and "apointed his beloved officers to positions of power"; but he also writes that "Piłsudski distinguished himself by his bravery", was "endowed with the magnetism of a born commander", "became a living symbol of national independence", and so on. Hardly a one-sided damning criticism; hence I am removing the claim that Miłosz was his prominent critic. As Michnik, he praised parts of P. achievements and criticized the others; anybody can read the few pages he devotes to Piłsudski (that I linked above) and see that criticism is not the entire picture.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism by Geremek

The article states: "He has been criticized by some prominent Poles, including the Polish historian and Minister of Foreign Affairs Bronislaw Geremek." [ref] The ref quotes Geremek for: "Pilsudski's flaws are not mentioned". Uh. This is hardly a notable criticism. I think this sentence needs to be removed or rewritten.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A vague comment from 1991 is hardly any sort of cogent criticism. Nihil novi (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


It is true that the article is getting a bit on the lenghty side. What could be shortened? Feel free to split up content to subarticles. I am considering removing the family section, as well as notes b and c. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider trying your hand at streamlining the lead? Encyclopedia Americana's lead reads: "the chief architect of Poland's independence in the 20th century, reborn Poland's first head of state, and the country's virtual dictator after 1926." Wikipedia's lead could elaborate slightly on this, but as it stands now, it contains too much detail. Nihil novi (talk) 07:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Some of the illustrations, especially in the upper part of the article, are now of disproportionately massive size. Nihil novi (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Lead shortened; note c - most useless one - removed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


What was the religion of Józef Piłsudski? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It varied according to his needs. In order to marry his previously-divorced first wife, Piłsudski, like others in the same situation, switched from Roman Catholicism to the Polish Reformed Church. After his first wife died (she had refused to grant him a divorce), Piłsudski married his second wife, by whom he already had two daughters, back in the bosom of the Catholic Church. Nihil novi (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Urbankowski has a chapter on it, but it boils down to what Nihil Novi wrote about. He was not very religious, but he seemed to have used religion as a tool to suit his needs. Interestingly, among his famous quotes are ones both praising religion and criticizing it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent wikilink clean-up

I recently cleaned up some wikilinks. Frankly there are too many in the article. First I think I removed all the unimportant ones that most people should be familiar with (example: funeral). We shouldn't spoon feed the reader, this terms link to articles completely unrelated to the Józef Piłsudski subject and if a reader is unsure about some term mentioned in the article (that most people would understand) he can look it up himself. I also fixed some double wikilinks but more work is needed. The biggest one I fixed was Warsaw, wikilinked about 10 times. I urge anyone maintaining this article to check all the places, people and organizations and make sure they are only linked once in the prose. Thank you. (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


This entry is nearly 9,000 words. Seems much longer than those for comparable historical figures. Sca (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Piłsudski is an incomparable historical figure. Nihil novi (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha, well said. Seriously, this only means that the 'comparable figures' need their articles expanded. Remember - Wiki is about leveling up, not dumbing down.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course I understand that Piłsudski is a major historical figure in Poland, and indeed the entry for him on Polish Wiki is about the same length (perhaps more than coincidence?). However, please do keep in mind that this is the English language Wikipedia. On this site, George Washington gets about 6,000 words. And Lenin -- whom most historians would rate as one of the most consequential — and controversial — figures of the 20th Century, gets about 6,600.
Piłsudski, though a fascinating personality, is not generally considered a major historical figure for English-speaking audiences. Consider the parallel with French: On French Wiki, Piłsudski gets about 1,700 words. I checked a number of other Wiki sites and found that many give him only 400-500 words. Strangely enough, that includes the Lithuanian site, which one might expect would take more interest in view of Piłsudski's historic connections with Vilnius. Lithuanian Wiki allots him just 442 words. The only other site I found that gives him more than the French and Russians do is Hebrew: 2,347 words.
My point, as a longtime editor, is proportionality. Length and detail should be related to significance to the audience. All newspapers practice this principle, and I think most encyclopedias do, too. An uninitiated English-speaker, seeking to find some basic information about Piłsudski, will be put off by such a long article, in my humble English-speaking ex-journalist's opinion.
Sca (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For readers of limited interest or attention span, there already is a 320-word version—the lead (a word count that is about par for this article on the lower-end Wikis that you cite). Nihil novi (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not your average encyclopedia. "Wiki is not paper" and such come to mind.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It is misleading to compare Piłsudski with George Washington. Over the past two centuries, the United States have had several other first-rank political figures besides Washington, including Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. During that same period, Piłsudski was, for Poland, a Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt, rolled into one. He therefore should be eligible for more space than Washington. Nihil novi (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not primarily about the greatness or "majorness" of historical figures, its about relevance. George Washington, as an example, is relevant to an English-speaking audience, on English-language Wikipedia, because he was seminal in the creation of a major English-speaking country. (He's sometimes called "the founder of our country," though of course it wasn't just him.)

It's appropriate for Piłsudski to get a long, detailed article on Polish-language Wikipedia, because of his crucial role in recent Polish history. (He probably should get more space than he does on Lithuanian and, arguably, Russian Wikis.) But it's difficult to imagine English-speaking users of our online encylopedia wanting to wade through 9,000 words about a historical figure whose primary significance is to Poland during the interwar period.

Had Piłsudski lived long enough to play a role in WWII and its aftermath, or in the postwar period, he would have been more relevant to English-speaking audiences — as is, for example, De Gaulle, who gets about 6,000 words on English-language Wiki (though in my view, that article also is on the long side).

Rather few English-speakers, proportionately, are likely to have an interest in Piłsudski or a need for detailed information about him. It isn't because they have a "short attention span," it's because Piłsudski does not arise often as a topic in the English-speaking world, since he played virtually no role in it. Those who find him interesting as a historical personality can read books about Poland before WWII or biographies of Piłsudski. Sca (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, people interested in George Washington can do the same. Sca, nobody is holding a gun to Wikipedia readers' heads! And as I said, if someone wants a thumbnail sketch, that's what the lead is for. Nihil novi (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Re George, more English-speakers will be interested in more info about him on English-language Wiki.
We're not talking about holding a gun to their heads — we're talking about presenting readily accessible info that is relevant to a significant portion of the audience.
As a native English speaker, and as someone with long experience as an editor, I'm trying to explain why there is way too much detail in this article for English Wikipedia. I realize Piłsudski is a national hero in Poland. (Indeed, I've photographed his statue in Warsaw.) But that's because I have a personal interest in Polish history. And the relevance argument aside, this article is bloated by mundane details (he lost two teeth) and even irrelvancies, such as an unnamed British diplomat's comment on "extreme poverty and wretchedness" in Warsaw in 1919. It's much too prolix.
Sca (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend creates articles such as Early life of Józef Piłsudski and Authoritarian rule of Józef Piłsudski, copying the relevant sections to those articles, and then summarizing this article. See the article Opera (web browser) for an example of how this works. Sections such as "History" and "Features" are (at least in theory) summaries of the articles History of the Opera web browser and Features of the Opera web browser. If the user wants all the mundane details (like Józef Piłsudski losing two teeth) then they can read a separate, more detailed article on the subject. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I also recommend split up the article. Maybe some example would be also Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. or Leonardo da Vinci topics: Leonardo da Vinci's personal life & Leonardo da Vinci - scientist and inventor. Visor (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Such articles are frequently left unattended, unwatched and unupdated. I support their creation for future expansion, but I oppose moving most of the content of the current article there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to aggree with Sca that the article is too long. Relevant and encyclopedic information is good to have and in principle such information does'nt need to be culled. But when you have stuff like the second paragragh in the lead starting with ...Early in his poliical career... ending with...from the Central Powers, this "length issue" needs to be examined further. The paragraph is choppy and has an absurd quality purporting clairvoyance, ending with an illogical, almost paradoxical conclusion. Dr. Dan (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Clairvoyance? Certainly not in the usual, preternatural sense. In the etymological sense of "clear vision," that is what one would like to expect of politicians, let alone statesmen, but seldom finds. We do find more of it with Piłsudski. He anticipated that Poland would need allies, and sought them (in 1904, in Japan). He anticipated that Poland would need armed forces, and created them. He anticipated a general European war, when many argued that such a war was impossible since the various countries had too many mutual economic interests. He correctly anticipated the general course that such a war would take, and during World War I successfully acted on his predictions. This in November 1918 made him the only credible candidate to be Poland's commander-in-chief and Chief of State. This, and more, is doubtless what Joseph Conrad saw as making Piłsudski the only great man to come out of World War I. This is not hero-worship; it is history. Nihil novi (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Likewise visionary were Piłsudski's Prometheist and Intermarum concepts, which arguably found fulfillment decades later with, respectively, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the European Union (the latter, not yet including all the countries that he had in mind, but also including others, in western Europe). Nihil novi (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph is "choppy" and has an absurd quality purporting clairvoyance, ending with an illogical, almost paradoxical conclusion. As for your opinion, ..."clear vision," that is what one would like to expect of politician, but seldom finds. "He anticipated that Poland would need allies (and sought them in Japan)". I was unaware of any Polish-Japanese alliance up to this date. As for his predictions, were they written down in advance, or do we have the benefit of his memoirs to prove that? Or is your opinion concerning this formulated from recent articles in Polish weeklies? I would like to know. As for Joseph Conrad's opinions about Pilsudski, if that doesn't fall under Hero worship, nothing does. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you read the references? Nihil novi (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Hans Roos writes (A History of Modern Poland, 1966, p. 14): "As early as June 1914 he [Piłsudski] saw clearly [emphasis added] what the course of the coming world war would be; he explained that in such a war the Central Powers would first destroy the Russian empire, but would then in turn be defeated by the Western Powers. The champions of a Polish state should therefore first ally themselves with the Central Powers, and then, when the change in fortunes occurred, go over to the West. This was in fact the programme which Pilsudski followed during the First World War. For him August 1914 was the answer to the prayer which the famous poet Adam Mickiewicz—for whose work Pilsudski otherwise had no particular sympathy—had once addressed to God for a universal war to free the oppressed Poles." Nihil novi (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's nice that Hans Roos agrees with you, but I was interested whether there is anything that Pilsudski himself left us, regarding his predictions prior to their occurence? Any evidence would be helpful and appreciated. Dr. Dan (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other sources

An excellent account of Piłsudski's career is contained in Bitter Glory: Poland & Its Fate 1918-1939, by Richard M. Watt (ISBN-10: 0781806739 — ISBN-13: 978-0781806732).

Richard Pipes, in A Concise History of the Russian Revolution (ISBN-10: 0679745440 - ISBN-13: 978-0679745440), asserts that Piłsudski's agreement not to attack the Soviets until they had defeated the white armies was crucial in the survival of the Bolshevik regime, and says that Piłsudski thought the Bolshevik government would keep Russia weak, minimizing her as a threat to Poland. The Germans advising Wilhelm II thought along similar lines in 1917-18, hence their support for Lenin. Both countries ended up regretting these policies in the long run, when the Soviet Union emerged victorious and voracious in 1945.

Sca (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Britannica online offers 1,500 words on Piłsudski. Sca (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Virtual dictator question

Some sources do use this term. Google book search cacked just now for me, but I think Pilsudksi dictator virtual yields fewer results than Pilsudski dictator -virtual. It's good to see some interest in the characterization of this regime; it deserves fuller treatment. Novickas (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the description by Slocombe ([33]): "The marshal's technique of dictatorship was based on two principles. One, borrowed from the Imperial House of Austria, was "Divide to Govern," which he applied with complete success. The other was "Govern by Others". He had neither title nor office as dictator. He was neither President of the Republic nor President of the Council of Ministers. In some years he was Minister of War. In others he was simply Inspector-General of the Army. But he, and he alone, chose President, Premier and Cabinet." And at least 15 books use the term virtual dicator indeed: [34]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Most dictators did not hold the title dictator. But to claim that Pilsudski was not a dictator is hardly debatable. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The date of Piłsudski's marriage with Maria Juszkiewiczowa

Hello there,
I've added today a bit of sources to the sentence stating Piłsudski was married with Maria Juszkiewiczowa in 1899. However, after searching Google Books, I'm puzzled: there are many sources giving contradictory information on the exact date. There are few books stating they married on July 15 (1, 2, 3), but several books state they married on June 25 (1, 2, 3), and looks like Ludwik Malinowski's Dramaty ludzi władzy II Rzeczypospolitej (ISBN 8385734295) tells the marriage took place on May 24.

Currently, the article states the date was July 15, but I think we'll need to check the information in other sources. If anybody could please do it, e.g. tell us what Urbankowski or Garlicki write on that subject, it would be great. Best regards, (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Google search results are in favour of July 15: 456 hits for '15 lipca' vs 4 hits for '25 czerwca' (both searched in Polish). (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Piłsudski an anti-semite - based on David Cymet - unreliable

Per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, surprising claims need to be referenced with most reliable sources. I have read Cymet's article (details here); setting aside the fact it is highly biased and full of unreferenced, emotional language, I cannot find 1) any articles citing him 2) any further or previous work published by him (see [35]) and 3) any record of him being an academic (it appears his short bio from the journal is not online). That is, unless he is the architect of that name, who seems to be more widely published and known. So the primary source claiming Piłsudski was an anti-semitie, Cymet, appears to be a written by a person with practically no academic creditentials save for one article from 1999. We have many contradictory, academic, reliable sources stating that Piłsudski was quite philo-Semitic, or at the very least, not supportive of anti-semitism, and a single, contradictory claim by Cymet fails UNDUE/FRINGE and should included here. And it appears this claim (Cymet, Wein) is based on a single quote: ""I must say that the Poles are not philo-Semites. That must be admitted. The Jews in Poland form a very large number and are a foreign body whom one would like to get rid of." Hardly anti-semitic (note Piłsudski is not speaking about his views but about the views of the Poles), and anyway, Piłsudski said many controversial things - which does not mean he was anti- or pro- many things. This was discussed during this article path to Featured candidate. PS. Wein only cites Pilsudski and makes no claims about him being anti-semitic ([36]). And you cite Sanders, but give no page number. Please provide a page number for Sanders, and a full quotation here - as I've explained above, Wein just gives the quote, and so far as I can verify Cymet is the only one who over-interprets it as Piłsudski's support for anti-semitism (not suprisingly, as according to Cymet article all Poles are anti-semities...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cymet sources the quote to a completely reliable source Ronald Sanders. Shores Of Refuge: A Hundred Years Of Jewish Emigration. New York: Henry Holt, 1988 (although Cymet is a reliable source himself--your rationale of WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding.) So we have two reliable sources (Cymet, Wein) referencing the quote from the indisputably reliable Sanders book. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE are not applicable, as this is notable information that is reliably sourced. So I am restoring the quote, with the page number Sanders (323) as you requested; please feel free to request comment etc if you still feel there is a problem.
As to your claim that "The Jews in Poland form a very large number and are a foreign body whom one would like to get rid of" is "hardly anti-semitic", I really don't know what to say. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not disputing the quote. You can add it to Wikiquote of Piłsudski quotes with my blessing, with refs to all three of the above. I am disputing using the quote as a proof that Piłsudski was an anti-semite. Cymet makes a lot of preposterous claims in his article, but per UNDUE/FRINGE, he is hardly reliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your own personal dislike of a source, and your personal analysis of the source's claims do not trump WP:RS (unless of course you have yourself published your own refutations of Cymet in a peer reviewed journal etc, in which case, please supply these sources). Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Read UNDUE/FRINGE. Exceptional claims require exceptional source. Are you claiming that Cymet is an exceptional source? If so, feel free to take it to WP:RSN. And no, Boody, this is not helpful. You claim that "Pilsudski's own views on Polish Jewry were reported in an interview in 1918": yet this is not true. Piłsudski did not give his view on the Jews there, he gave his views on the Polish view of the Jews, and provisionally (until he got more reports) claimed that the Lemberg pogrom was not serious. Overinterpreting it to claim that he gave his views on Jews there is simply a mistake. And since as I noted above, Cymet doesn't seem very reliable, I don't believe we have room in this article to present his dissenting views ("Cymet cites the interview as evidence that Pilsudski not only fully shared at this early date the eliminationist goal of Dmovski but that he was doing his best to achieve that goal." Attempts to put non-neutral/undue/fringe claims in quotes, when they are unacceptable in mainspace, are not in the spirit of NPOV, I am afraid. Feel free to add Piłsudski's quote to Wikiquote and Lemberg pogrom, it does not belong here - and neither to any speculations my Mr. Cymet of dubious reliability. This is a Featured article and needs to represent our highest standards (and Cymet controversial speculations are most certainly not among them).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Your premise is wrong. This is not an exceptional claim. It is a run of the mill, reliably sourced one. It is your misinterpretation that it is "extraordinary." And again, your own views on Cymet's reliability are your own. And please don't hide behiond the featured article issue--it's a non-issue, unless you are saying either a) you somehow WP:OWN this article, or b) a FA cannot be edited. Boodlesthecat Meow? 22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Calling people anti-semites is an exceptional claim. This article reached featured without it. Here is an academic book that states simply: "Piłsudski was not an anti-semite". Here is another work stating exactly the same: "Pilsudski was no antisemite". Here is another one, stating that the "Purpose of Piłsudski... was to weaken the antisemitic endecja camp". Here: "When Pilsudski assumed power, anti-semitic violence ended". Here: "Under Pilsudski, the party opposed anti-semitism". His death was an unpleasant shock to the members of the Polish Jewish community (thank you, Tymek). We have more refs in the article about Piłsudski good relations with Jews and his support for all minorities. Prove that many academics call Piłsudski anti-semitie, and we can add this to the article. If the only person calling him so is Cyrat, author of a single article, this fails WP:REDFLAG.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat, please provide Cymet's credentials. Who is he, what are his publications? It is you who came up with this stuff, so please solve it. Tymek (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The Cymet article seems to have been re-cited enough [37] - bio not required. His presence in Informaworld [38] will do. Novickas (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
A few hits on google don't assert reliability, and certainly not that his work has been positively reviewed and noticed by the academic community. And his "presence on Informaworld" simply confirms he had this one, single article published in the journal cited above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Tymek and Piotrus, if you have questions about a reliable source added to an article, please take it to the appropriate RS noticeboard, where they handle such issues. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Per WP reliable sources article: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available." The Cymet article qualifies. It was in the Journal of Genocide Research, published by Routledge - see [39], which states that "All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by two anonymous referees." Routledge has an excellent reputation. Please desist. Novickas (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Routledge is not a word of God, and makes mistakes. For exceptional claims, contradicted by dozens of much more reliable scholars, we need something more than a single work that has somehow slipped past peer reviewers at this Journal.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Once again, Piotrus, you are appealing to your opinion/WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which does not take precedence over WP:RS. I'm afraid your claims that something "slipped past peer viewers" has zero weight in assessing a relable source. Do you have a reliable source that indicates Cymet is unreliable? A reliable source that indicates the quote from Pilsudski is not real? A reliable source that this "slipped past peer reviewers"? That's what you should be supplying on a talk page, per WP:TALK, rather than your own opinions and speculations about sources, which--unless you present credentials indicating you are a reliable source--I'm afraid have no weight. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Cat, you have not addressed the sources cited above by Piotrus. They cannot be lightly dismissed. One eccentric Cymet does not trump a consensus among many independent authors. Nihil novi (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

According to you Polish Jews weren't able to identify antisemites, they needed Cymet to give them precious hints.

Józef Piłsudzki had a long and complicated life, maybe he said what you quoted. Józef Piłsudzki was however respected and praised by Jews in Poland. Who gives you the right to impose your antipolish obessions? Antipolonism is the same bigotry as antisemitism.Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

A long 1918 text in 1926- part, strange editing. It should be moved to 1918. You cannot define 1926 views using 1918 statement.Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me start by confessing that I don't know anything about Piłsudski or his views concerning Jews. I also have to acknowledge that Piotrus asked me to review this discussion.
I'll assume that the interview quote found by Boodlesthecat is genuine, but I have to say that the balance of sources seem to indicate that those comments were not an indication that Piłsudski was an antisemite. Piotrus has cited five books that make the opposite point — that Piłsudski was not an antisemite, that he was regarded positively by Polish Jews. As an outsider to this dispute, it seems to me like a stretch to interpret the interview as representative of Piłsudski's views of the Jews. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Pilsudski's views and his policies are two different issues. In a nutshell: By and large, Pilsudski did not carry out the anti-semitic polcies of his successors (although he was hardly philo-semitic). See, e.g., here for an accurate summary of his meaning for Polish Jewry. His claim to fame re: Jewry, and rightly so, was that he forcefully opposed Endek anti-semitism and violence, since he advocated a multinational state and his opponents (who consolidated power after his death) advocated a ethnic Polish state--hence, the subsequent violence against Jews, draconian laws strangling Jews economically, the plans for the expulsion of Polands Jews as Poland descended into a form of fascism after Pilsudski's death.
However, Pilsudski's views are distinct from his policies. We know of recent American presidents who were anti-semites, but did not persecute Jews. I see no reason to censor reliably sourced accounts of Pilsudski's views on Jews, which are distinct from his policies (which are also included in the same section, including the support he received from Polish Jews, largely from fear of the eliminationalist nationalists.) Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
See for instance here:

Both leaders [Pilsudski and the open anti-semite Dmowski], though, considered the 3.5 million Jews in Poland a foreign body whose presence would have to be substantially reduced.--National Identity and Foreign Policy: Ilya Prizel, Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

This is not a fringe view. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not a fringe view of Piłsudski because...? And anyway it is a selective quote view, since it implies they might have as well wanted to kill the Jews. Piłsudski wanted to assimilate the Jews into the Polish society, and voluntarily at that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Boodlesthecat, you are constantly repeating one mistake. You are constantly claiming that the Polish government planned expulsion of Jews from Poland, yet you somehow keep on forgetting that a large chunk of Jews also wanted to create their own country, and they left Poland in the 1920s and 1930s not because they were forced to, but because they wanted to. Tymek (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The expulsion plans are a fact. And the reason some Jews (Zionists were a minority) wanted to leave, even though they has been there for 800 years is that by the 1920s and 1930s the anti-semitism was becoming unbearable. Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Your simplifications are really amazing. Why then millions of Germans left their homeland in the XIX century? Why did millions of Poles leave their country in early XX century? Because of anti-germanism and anti-polonism? I feel like I am talking to a brick wall, who has one answer for everything. Tymek (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Nationalism and Leadership in Poland the bad Polish government didn't finance Jewish cultural institutions. Certainly between revisionistic Germany and Communist SU Jewish cultural institutions were very important, in a poorly armed country with high illiteracy among non-Jews. Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jews in Poland a foreign body - what about views of the Jews about Poland? Many German Jews emigrated to Germany together with Germans, some others considered themselves to be German (until they were told by Germans they weren't German). Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is no place for controversial quotations

As was extensively discusses during the Featuring process, P. sad MANY things, about many nationalities and ethnicities. To include all of his quotes would be impossible (but this is what wikiquote is for). To include only those supporting a given POV (for example, "Poles are antisemities") is obviously not NPOV. So please - not quote POV pushing, for or against any ethnic/national group. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Any politician, including Józef Piłsudski, generates thousands of statements, frequently contradictory ones. Describing the politician on the basis of his selected statements is highly unreliable. Decisions are much more important. BTW any nationalist (endecja) will explain you how to understand the quoted statement - pro-Jewish Piłsudzki lied to Poles to gain their support.Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski vs. Heinrich Himmler

Article Heinrich Himmler quotes Himmler's opinion about the Jews from 1943, also during the top of the Holocaust. Does Piłsudski deserve to be attacked stronger than Heinrich Himmler? Why?Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify how is Pilsudski attacked in the current version of the article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Prose issues

For someone with a better internet connection - yes, "after 123 years of partitions" is not good. Also, "Early in his political career, Piłsudski became a leader of the Polish Socialist Party. Concluding, however, that Poland's independence would have to be won by force of arms, he created the Polish Legions"; why is there a however here? The two allegiances don't ncessarily amount to mutually exclusive clauses. Novickas (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)