Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 10

Chopin, Frenchman

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

I find the phrase "a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of French-Polish parentage and citizenship" pretty helpful, although something about him residing in France for a big chunk of his life may be helpful as well. I'd suggest saying "parentage, citizenship and residentship." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect the citizenship bit is clear original research (does it even make sense to talk about Polish citizenship back then?)--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that saying he had Polish citizenship is a bit of a stretch. We do know that he had French citizenship (because we have a copy of his French passport) but to write of "French-Polish parentage and French citizenship" would only spark an edit war. Varsovian (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Really? Well, how about differentiating between French citizenship and Polish nationality? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact that "we have his passport" is still not enough for me to want to include reference to his French citizenship in the lead. Firstly because we don't know that passport implies citizenship (even today I"m not sure that it always does, and back then when the concept of citizenship was in its infancy even in France, I don't know of any basis for assuming it), and secondly because even if it is true, the sources mention it so rarely - if at all - that it would be giving the matter very undue weight to include it in our first paragraph.--Kotniski (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well put. Nihil novi (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
So your position is that merely having a French passport (which clearly states that Chopin was born to French parents) isn't good enough for you to accept that Chopin had French citizenship? Well, I suppose that that is your right but there are a number of WP:RS which disagree with you (and at least one which goes on to point out that Chopin had been born French). Can you provide an RS which says that although Chopin had a number of French passports, he was not a French citizen? Varsovian (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Questions: 1) we are discussing lead, not the body, right? Nobody is challenging the paragraph in Chopin#Paris, yes? 2) Is there anybody who would like to see the inclusion of citizenship in the lead? If so, what is the rationale for this being important enough to merit lead inclusion (if only Szulc is discussing it, it doesn't seem that crucial to mention in the short lead summary). That said Szulc does seem to imply that passport = citizenship (again, is this a contention common or exceptional as far as early 19th century goes?).
Comments: After rereading the lead, I see that the sentence goes "Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of French-Polish parentage", as such I don't think that we need to clarify he was of Polish nationality (as I suggested before). Also, the second para describes he moved from (partitioned) Poland to France, so my suggestion about adding a note on French-Polish residentship is less needed as well, but I still put it out for your consideration. Lastly, on the passport/citizenship issue, I think that if we decide to include that in the lead, we should also clarify the following issues: did he have a Duchy of Warsaw passport/citizenship (his place of birth) and that he obtained a Russian passport later (as a result of Duchy ceasing to exist and partitions of Poland - a n important link currently not present in the lead). PS. Once the lead becomes stable, I think it would be a good idea to nominate this article for WP:GA.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think the article may not be very far from FA quality; but personally I wouldn't like to be involved in any canonization process, if it may involve the sort of outlandish discourse that we have been experiencing over Chopin's citizenships, passports and nationality. Nihil novi (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, with some cleanup (it's a little choppy and not completely referenced) it could probably get thru GA. FAs get more eyes; someone might want to see a more detached version of the nationalism issue, reflecting for example Norman Davies's 'Who is to say?' in God's Playground [1]. Or quibble with 'he was the first composer to take a national genre of music from his home country and transform it into a genre worthy of the general concert-going public' when other sources include him in a list: Carl Maria Von Weber, Crusell, Beethoven, Berlioz, Liszt,...[2], [3]. Novickas (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The intense argument there over the lead sentences - centering on whether he should be described as Polish or Polish-French - doesn't rely solely on the Code Napoleon argument - it also concerns his father's ethnicity, generally described as French, and on Tad Szulc saying that F. Chopin obtained a French passport in 1835. (Another source gives an earlier date). A Gbook link to Szulc's he-became-a-French-citizen-in-1835 was at some point refd with a Google book link that has gone away there - so see it here [4]. Novickas (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Clarify that the biographer uses the phrase 'became a French citizen'. Novickas (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I am perplexed at the fact that the only accepted source is that of Tad Szulc who wrote that Chopin "became a French citizen", which, according to the Code Napoléon under which Chopin was born, is obviously incorrect. But Tad Szulc wrote it in a book, so that has to be correct!
On Chopin's talk page, I have given the name of several famous people in the same case as Chopin, and with their double nationality given together in the first sentence of the lead.
I also find it interesting that there is no problem in this instance:
  • Count Alexandre Joseph Colonna-Walewski, born two months after Chopin, also in the Duchy of Warsaw, the illegitimate son of Napoléon & Maria Walewska: "Alexandre Florian Joseph, Duke Colonna-Walewski (4 May 1810 – 27 October 1868) was a Polish and French politician and diplomat. He was the son of Napoleon I and his mistress Marie, Countess Walewski." The Code Napoléon did not apply to him because he was recognised by his mother's husband, but he did become a French citizen after emigrating to France.
The list of Poles who have had another nationality because of a French or other national father is long. Their national duality, either from birth or obtained by choice later in life, is always recognised, except in the case of Frédéric Chopin.
Someone please explain to me why the special handling of Chopin, which I could understand on Polish wiki.
--Frania W. (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for finding the GBook link, I think it should be restored to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The following is a link to the translation in English of the 1804 Code Napoléon.
CHAPTER I. Of the enjoyment of civil rights, please click on TITLE I, Chapter I which is on French nationality of a child being born outside of France of a Frenchman.
I fail to see how referring to the 1804 Code Napoléon, the translation of which is given at the above, and which is on the site of France's Assemblée nationale & the Bibliothéque nationale de France, can be said to be OR. Professeur Emmanuel Langavant does nothing but explain & confirm the terms of the Code, which was in effect in the Duchy of Warsaw at the time of the birth of Chopin.
When in 1829 Chopin went to Austria & Germany, he travelled on a Russian passport. In 1831, while in Vienna, he tried to get a visa to go to Paris, but could not get the Russians to agree to it, they kept messing around with his passport, not returning it to him, supposedly having lost it, etc. At the suggestion of the French ambassador in Vienna, he then requested a visa for England with stopover in Paris. He succeeded in getting that visa which had the mention passant par Paris accepted by the Russians, and that's how he was able to go to Paris - the destination he had in mind all the time. He left Vienna on 20 July 1831 arrived in Paris a few days later, and it is after three or four years there - depending on the date of his first French passport -, that he was issued a passport as a Frenchman born in Poland, of French parents. In my opinion, this information is not the result of original research as is constantly reproached me.
In view of all this, I see no reason for automatically ignoring or denying Chopin's French nationality in the lead right along his Polish one.
--Frania W. (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I on the other hand see no reason why should one want to have Chopin's alleged French "nationality" (which is rather in this case citizenship under the so called code Napoleon) in the lead. The article already extensively deal with it. I suggest removing the Polish-French from the lead and restoring the previous situation which was stable for a very long time.  Dr. Loosmark  19:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Better still, let's remove the words 'Polish' and 'French' from the lead entirely and let the rest of the article deal with the subject. That would completely solve the problem. Varsovian (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday, it was "the French thing", today, it is the "alleged French "nationality"", through which I see more antagonism against anything that's French, specially when it touches Frédéric Chopin.
Again, since he was French from birth, I see no reason to remove that fact from the lead where it belongs together with his being Polish.
"French from birth." This raises a question which, perhaps, a historian of law could address for us. Would an individual in Fryderyk's situation automatically be "French from birth," or would his parents have had to register the choice of French citizenship for him through appropriate channels? Nihil novi (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
My dear Nihil: #10 on the page given below, says, in English:
Every child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French.
Period. That's it! His parents did not have to "register the choice of French citizenship for him through appropriate channels", they were not to choose whether their son should be a Frenchman or not, the very fact that Nicolas Chopin was French was it, was the reason his son was French. And that fact was inscribed on the baptismal record, the word "French" in Latin is there for a reason, meaning that the child who had been baptised had a French father. Then the French passport has "born of French parents". What else do you want?
a chapter out of here:
Too bad that books published with mistakes are a better source than the not-in-a-book-form analysis by a civil law professor.
--Frania W. (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Frania, laws are administered by regulations and bureaucracies. If laws always sufficed, there would be no need of lawyers. Nihil novi (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
My dear, although I'd rather not use personal examples, I will make an exception here: for several generations there have been cases very similar to that of Chopin père & fils in my family, and I can tell you that no lawyer was ever necessary to prove citizenship. All that was needed was a certified-by-notary birth or marriage certificate (or translation of) to show at the Préfecture de Police or at a certain Embassy. No lawyer. Minimal cost. --Frania W. (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." I have seen that somewhere... Didn't the old Bulldog say it?
--Frania W. (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Has Langavant's hypothesis, discussed in this on-line article, [5], received peer review? Nihil novi (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
My dear Nihil, to my knowledge, the Code, be it called Napoléon or Highway, is a fact, not a "hypothesis"; so Langavant has done nothing more than discuss a fact, not a hypothesis. The sentence discussed Every child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French. is very clear & does not need the intervention of an army of lawyers to be interpreted to mean that the child born outside of France of a Frenchman is French. So I do not see where Langavant's underlining a very simple sentence in the French civil Code needs to be reviewed by his peer or the President of the French Republic; it belongs to the French Civil Code, and clearer language could not have been used to write that born outside of France of a Frenchman, a child is French.
Please, tell me what type of "peer review" we need to write in Wikipedia about driving on the left in the UK?
or if this is to be an accepted & obvious fact, like breathing is a natural act necessary in order to live?
--Frania W. (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
"Every child born of a Frenchman in a foreign country is French". This might be true from the point of view of French bureaucrats of the time. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a person born to a French father in a foreign country and raised in that country really feels/felt French. Or to put it differently if a person doesn't feel French then even 20 "codes Napoleon" won't make him French.  Dr. Loosmark  13:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
That person may also be entitled to a dual citizenship, as it may be granted to that person by the state it was born in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
That person being born in Poland of a French father, having also been raised in Poland (and no one here is denying him his deep feeling of Polishness or his Polish nationality), that person, namely Frédéric Chopin, could have chosen another country to live in, England, for instance, but he chose France where he lived the entire second part of his life, eighteen years. He even went as far as using the French version of his baptismal names (which, by the way, he had to do as French nationals could, at the time, be given only French names) getting a French passport (several, in fact) with no one having to twist his wrist to do it, thus recognising the fact that he was French, as it was on the basis of his being born of a Frenchman in Poland thus being French, fact that the obtaining of his first French passport was confirming. That very same person lived in a Paris that he adored, lived among French people who adored him, spent summers in the French country home of a French woman among friends of all nationalities as guests; that French-fashion conscious person was one of the most elegant men in France, and when that person, namely Chopin, was on his deathbed, he was surrounded by close friends, French & Polish, and even from the other side of the English Channel. France gave him one of the most grandiose national funerals ever and the crowd was too big to describe who took him to his tomb at the Père Lachaise cemetery. Frédéric Chopin's love of France & the French is expressed in many of his letters.
--Frania W. (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hardly surprising that Chopin, when forced to remain abroad in the aftermath of the Polish November 1830 Uprising, should choose to do so in France, which was then the center of European and western culture. Many other members of Poland's Great Emigration at the time did the same, including Chopin's friend and Poland's pre-eminent Romantic poet, Adam Mickiewicz, who had no French ancestry.
And if Chopin was honored in life and in death, it was principally as a great artist, and not just by Frenchmen. Nihil novi (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Not forced to remain abroad according to this source, [6], The Cambridge companion to Chopin, Cambridge University Press 1995 page 6, "Life in France agreed with him and he quickly put to the back of his mind any thoughts of returning to his homeland (he could easily have done so when the Czar offered the first of many amnesties in 1833.)" Novickas (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, he (and the other members of Poland's Great Emigration) could have returned — had they not cared about expressing themselves freely. Nihil novi (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, nonetheless, the fact that he was French was of much help to him because it allowed him to remain in France as a Frenchman, not as a political refugee.
If a French passport was helpful to him, then he did wisely, making use of it. Nihil novi (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Nihil, I wish that you would stop trying to prove to me that Chopin was a Polish-Polish Pole. I know of his attachment to the land of his birth as much as you do, but I also know that he was also French. And he knew it too.
--Frania W. (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
It was Chopin's French girlfriend, George Sand, and French biographer Louis Énault who described him as "more Polish than Poland." Nihil novi (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
As has been pointed out before, at the time she made that comment Poland was Russian (with German and Austrian bits). Varsovian (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
So? Sand wasn't addressing the political geography, but the culture, of Poland. Nihil novi (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting. Do you have a WP:RS which talks about what Sand was addressing with that comment? Or is your analysis WP:OR? Varsovian (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
George Sand would not have been so stupid as to compare the "Polishness" of an individual with that of a people who had supposedly ceased to exist, as you have suggested, merely because their sovereignty had been destroyed. Nor would Louis Énault have done so:
"Chopin, in spite of spending half of his life in Paris, remained characteristically Polish and was a 'lonely soul.' Louis Énault, a biographer, said: 'The Slavs lend themselves gladly but never give themselves; Chopin is more Polish than Poland.'" Marion Bauer, Music Through the Ages: A Narrative for Student and Layman, p. 248. Nihil novi (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments about Énault, I was actually asking about Sand. I conclude that you have no such sources regarding what she was addressing. Varsovian (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

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


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

Lead as of now

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

Frédéric François Chopin, in Polish Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (the surname is pronounced [ʃɔpɛ̃] in French, and usually /ˈʃoʊpæn/ in English; 1 March 1810[1] – 17 October 1849), was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of French-Polish parentage, who is considered to have been one of the great masters of Romantic music.

Chopin was born in the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw to a French-expatriate father and Polish mother, and was considered a child-prodigy pianist. Following the Russian suppression of the Polish November 1830 Uprising, Chopin settled in France as part of the Polish Great Emigration. In Paris he supported himself as a composer and piano teacher, giving few public performances. After romantic involvements with several Polish women, from 1837 to 1847 he carried on a relationship with the French female novelist George Sand. For the greater part of his life Chopin suffered from poor health; he died in Paris, aged 39, of pulmonary tuberculosis.

I think it does a pretty good job as it is. It's certainly true that there are people whose Polishness has been exaggerated on Wikipedia and elsewhere by overzealous Poles, but with the lead phrased as it is here, I honestly don't think Chopin is one of those cases.--Kotniski (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Nihil novi (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
In the second passport it needs to be mentioned that his mother was Polish-French. Chopin was born to French parents (as his passport tells us). Varsovian (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by that; but the passport is presumably following the French legal definition of "French", which as we keep pointing out, is of very little interest to us. In fact the very fact that legally his mother may have been "French", while no reasonable source identifies her as such, is good evidence in itself that the world is not interested in people's nationality in the sense that you and others are trying to impose here.--Kotniski (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
But the world has always been interested in C's nationality; do you disagree that Norman Davies is a good enough source for that? [7] "Strong emotions have also been generated in interpretation of the works of F. Chopin (1810-49). Although the French have been slightly less proprietorial towards Chopin than the Germans towards Copernicus, the same debates and disagreements concerning the extent and significance of his 'Polishness' have regularly recurred". Novickas (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
What one thinks may depend on which Briton one wishes to believe. Chopin's English biographer Arthur Hedley, quoted in our article's "Nationalism" section, writes in Encyclopaedia Britannica that Chopin "found within himself and in the tragic story of Poland the chief sources of his inspiration. The theme of Poland's glories and sufferings was constantly before him, and he transmuted the primitive rhythms and melodies of his youth into enduring art forms." Nihil novi (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Also (if the quote above is all Davies says on the matter) he seems to be talking about interpretation of Chopin's works rather than the man's nationality or "citizenship".--Kotniski (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
That's right. Nihil novi (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
A great deal of Chopin historiography revolves around his ethnicity directly in relation to his work, so it's hard to separate the two. From Music in Chopin's Warsaw, Halina Goldberg, Oxford University Press, 2008, p.6: "The demand for unambiguous Polishness, as defined by the successive "-isms," played a role in several aspects of Chopin historiography." From Maja Trochimczyk's entry in The age of Chopin: interdisciplinary inquiries, Indiana University Press, 2004, p.291: "In the process of asserting Chopin's Polish identity at the beginning of the twentieth century, an awareness of his double cultural and personal background (my emphasis) was replaced by a belief in his fully Polish origins." [8] On a general note, apart from the Polish-French in the lead issue (which I'm going to withdraw from - clearly a time sink and I would like to think that people read entire articles rather than stop after the first two sentences), I'd like to see the article move towards more modern sources and interpretations, other than the occasional quote from a notable contemporary. I presume I don't need to justify that. Novickas (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what is meant by the "second passport" (second paragraph)? But I note that nobody is proposing any changes to the lead. Can we assume that as far as the lead is concerned, the current version is an acceptable compromise? Are there any issues about the body that need to be discussed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The lead: as it reads right now, although there is an improvement by recognising his "French-Polish parentage", is not 100 per cent what I would like to agree to, because Frédéric Chopin was both Polish and French. The problem I am encountering is finding a source other than Langavant, since what he wrote is not in a book form and cannot, supposedly, be used, although we also have the 1804 Code Napoléon itself, in French & with the English translation found online, which I gave somewhere above in previous section. I also realise that we must reach consensus, which, if I understand, would not set the lead in stone. If someone ever comes with properly sourced material RE Chopin's French nationality then the lead could be rectified.
Britannica Macropædia - Knowledge in Depth, 15th edition, 1997, as well as Britannica Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 edition online have Chopin as Polish-French:
  • Frédéric François Chopin Polish-French, born of a French father...
Langavant is not the only author who has demonstrated that Chopin was French at birth, but it is difficult to find all the authors. French pianist Alfred Cortot in his book Aspects de Chopin, chapter: Ce qu'il doit à la France, p. 110 Albin Michel, wrote: "... sa citoyenneté française authentiquée légalement par un passeport...", referring to the 1837 passport. ("His French citizenship legally authenticated by a passport.") Pianist Maria Gondolo della Riva Masera in her book Frédéric Chopin, Aperçus biographiques (ed. Michel de Maule, 2010) calls Chopin Franco-Polish
Finally, at Wikipedia Reliable Sources, I found this: "When discussing legal texts, it is more reliable to quote from the text, appropriately qualified jurists or textbooks than from newspaper reporting."
So if it is "more reliable to quote from the text", why can't the 1804 Code Napoléon, with the short sentence A child born... is French, be used as a source? It certainly would simplify matters.
--Frania W. (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Because the Code Napoleon isn't the subject of the article. We are not discussing legal texts in this article - and even if we find some reliable source somewhere that make this link between French law and Chopin's situation, it still wouldn't belong in the lead, but as a detail somewhere in the article. The biographical sources that you quote which describe him as Polish-French/Franco-Polish etc. are of much more significance - if we can conclude that there are a significant number of them relative to the number that describe him simply as Polish, then we could try reflecting both viewpoints in the lead (I once suggested "...a Polish (sometimes described as Polish-French) composer...") --Kotniski (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It has never been my intention to discuss the Code Napoléon in the lead, or make it "the subject of the article", but to have it recognised beforehand as a proper source to support those who say that Chopin was a French national at birth, together with being Polish, and having such stated in the lead: Polish-French.
As for finding a nearly equal number of sources describing Chopin Polish-French vs only Polish, this is impossible because for over a century the Poles have taken over Chopin to the point that the simple fact of bringing out the possible French nationality of Chopin has been taken by the Poles as an attempt to kidnap a national hero.
Without going back to the whole unending debate, I would like to mention again that several articles on famous people mention a double nationality with no outcry, no request for support by secondary or tertiary sources: Einstein, Rubinstein, Werner von Braun, Cortot, Yves Montand, or Guillaume Apollinaire, born a Pole in Italy, who became French at the age of 36, and given as a "French poet, playwright and art critic" as a matter of fact, with not even the batting of an eye.
What I am saying is that Frédéric Chopin is being subjected to a well-orchestrated treatment applied to no one else in Wikipedia.
--Frania W. (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Frania. I am having trouble figuring out exactly what change you'd like to make. Could you post a proposed new version of a sentence (paragraph) in your own new section and add a justification below? If you could put it side by side with the current version that would be best. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Choices for lead

=Lead as it appears now=:

Frédéric François Chopin, in Polish Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (the surname is pronounced [ʃɔpɛ̃] in French, and usually /ˈʃoʊpæn/ in English; 1 March 1810[1] – 17 October 1849), was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of French-Polish parentage. He was one of the great masters of Romantic music.

Chopin was born in the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw to a French-expatriate father and a Polish mother, and was a child-prodigy pianist and composer. Following the Russian suppression of the Polish November 1830 Uprising, Chopin settled in France as part of the Polish Great Emigration. In Paris he supported himself as a composer and piano teacher, giving few public performances. After romantic involvements with several Polish women, from 1837 to 1847 he carried on a relationship with the French novelist, Aurore Dupin, better known by her pseudonym, George Sand. For the greater part of his life Chopin suffered from poor health; he died in Paris, aged 39, of pulmonary tuberculosis.

=Second possibility=:

Frédéric François Chopin, in Polish Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (the surname is pronounced [ʃɔpɛ̃] in French, and usually /ˈʃoʊpæn/ in English; 1 March 1810[1] – 17 October 1849), was a Polish born composer and virtuoso pianist of Polish-French parentage. He was one of the great masters of Romantic music.

Chopin was born in the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw to a French-expatriate father and Polish mother, and was a child-prodigy pianist and composer. Following the Russian suppression of the Polish November 1830 Uprising, Chopin settled in France as part of the Polish Great Emigration. In Paris he supported himself as a composer and piano teacher, giving few public performances. After romantic involvements with several Polish women, from 1837 to 1847 he carried on a relationship with the French novelist, Aurore Dupin, better known by her pseudonym, George Sand. For the greater part of his life Chopin suffered from poor health; he died in Paris, at the age of thirty-nine, of pulmonary tuberculosis.

=Third possibility=:

Frédéric François Chopin, in Polish Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (the surname is pronounced [ʃɔpɛ̃] in French, and usually /ˈʃoʊpæn/ in English; 1 March 1810[1] – 17 October 1849), was a Polish-French composer and virtuoso pianist. He was one of the great masters of Romantic music.

Chopin was born in the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw to a French father and a Polish mother, and was a child-prodigy pianist and composer. Following the Russian suppression of the Polish November 1830 Uprising, Chopin settled in France as part of the Polish Great Emigration. In Paris, he supported himself as a composer and piano teacher, giving few public performances. After romantic involvements with several Polish women, from 1837 to 1847 he carried on a relationship with the French novelist, Aurore Dupin, better known by her pseudonym, George Sand. For the greater part of his life Chopin suffered from poor health; he died in Paris, at the age of thirty-nine, of pulmonary tuberculosis.


Obviously, the third possibility is the one I prefer because Polish-French is what Chopin was, but since we must reach consensus, and until the French nationality of Chopin at birth can be verified according to Wikipedia "rules & regulations", I would approve the second one.

--Frania W. (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

But we've been there before. "Polish born" is a weird expression that implies - well, we're not sure what it implies, different things to different people, but nothing that will increase a reader's understanding of the facts. Your unilateral statement that "Polish-French is what Chopin was" is - well, it's your unilateral statement - it's supported by some sources, but fails to reflect the general view of the sources (not only Polish ones, by any means) that Chopin was "more" Polish than French. For me, the mention of "Polish-French parentage" (perhaps slightly better would be "French-Polish", or we could write English and say "mixed French and Polish") in the same sentence is quite enough to reflect his Frenchness, since presumably the sources that describe him as Polish-French/Franco-Polish are doing so on the basis of his parentage. But if it's so important to indicate that not all sources regard him as exclusively Polish, then we should at least find wording (even if slightly awkward) that make it clear that very many of them do - and certainly none of them regard him as exclusively French.--Kotniski (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
To me, "Polish born", implies that he was "born a Pole". If you say that I am "French born", no matter where I was born, you are saying that I "am French". In the lead, we want to say what Chopin was exactly, not translate the feeling/opinion of those who said that "Chopin was more Polish than Poland", which is not a nationality, nor can be mentioned on a passport, even a Polish one. Besides, someone with mixed parentage can very well be "more one than the other", which does not keep that person from being the product of both.
--Frania W. (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
So if he was born a Pole, then he was a Pole his whole life, right? Your thesis is that he didn't change his nationality in any sense at any point. So what does adding "born" add to the meaning, except to make people think (wrongly) that he ceased to be Polish later on (or, if they interpret the phrase differently, that he wasn't really Polish but just happened to be born in Poland)? And what is this obsession with passports?--Kotniski (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, Frédéric Chopin's Polish nationality, which was his all his life, has never been in doubt, it is his French nationality that is being denied.
If "Polish", as meaning "Polish national", (and only "Polish", not "Polish born"), is put in first sentence of lead, then "French" has to be right there next to it, because, son of a Frenchman, Chopin was a French national at birth. Were he born today, the same would apply. May I again repeat that others in same or similar case as Chopin have all their nationalities mentioned in first sentence of lead: Einstein, Rubinstein, von Braun, Cortot and many more, too numerous to list here.
There is no "obsession" with passports on my part. In this lengthy discussion, both here & on the article talk page, Chopin's 1837 passport was one of the two pieces (the other being the baptismal record) used by Langavant together with the 1804 Code Napoléon to juridically prove that Frédéric Chopin was born French. The only reason the passport keeps on coming back in the conversation is because you & others keep on asking the same question(s) which I calmy & politely answer all over again each time. So the "obsession" might be on the other side, the side of those who obsessively ask for proof over & over again, then turn down whatever is brought to them.
--Frania W. (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
He was born Polish and French. His father was also born French. His mother was born Polish and then became Polish-French when she married his father. So Chopin was born to a French father and a Polish-French mother. The best way to make it clear that he was both Polish and French his entire life is to describe him as "Polish-French", not as "Polish-born". Varsovian (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any source that describes his mother as Polish-French?--Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Please see above on this page. It would be best if certain editors could understand that constantly re-requesting sources which have already been given is not in the slightest bit helpful to the discussion here or the common goal. Varsovian (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I still can't find it, please can you point it out.--Kotniski (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Chopin's mother was 100% Polish and there is no source which would say anything different. The "source" that Varsovian keeps repeating is some French bureaucrat of the time writing something as that "the wife should follow his husband condition", which according to Varsovian's original research means she should be considered "French". De facto that would mean that every women who ever, anywhere married a Frenchman is French, which is absurd. Let's be totally honest here: saying that Chopin's mother was French has as much credibility as saying that Chopin was a bastard, that is zero. The real question is how to consider Chopin's father; since he spent a good part of his life living in Poland, where he adopted the name Mikolaj, he should be considered as French-Polish.  Dr. Loosmark  12:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, I disagree with that unless that's how sources refer to him (and I think it's not). --Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Emmanuel Langavant, agrégé de droit public, professeur à la faculté de droit de l'université de Lille II, was not a French bureaucrat of the time and reading his work is not original research. But clearly anything which states that Chopin was anything less than 100% Polish will simply be dismissed as 'original research' by editors who are unable to stop their nationalism getting in the way of their objectivity. I do like Loosmark's question about Chopin's father though. Let me use the same logic here: the real question is how to consider Nicolas Chopin's son: since he spent a good part of his life living in France, where he used the name Frédéric François and took up the French passport which was his birth-right, he should be considered as French-Polish. Varsovian (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Please provide a source where the professeur says that Chopin's mother was French.  Dr. Loosmark  16:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Loosmark,
English translation of Code Napoléon:
TITLE I Chapter I where you will find both the nationality of the child & that of the woman who marries a Frenchman, and YES, paraphrasing you: "every woman who ever, anywhere married a Frenchman was French", at time of the implementation of the 1804 Code Napoléon, which covered the wife of Nicolas Chopin. As for Nicolas Chopin, the fact that he adopted the spelling of his baptismal name in Polish did not make a Polish national out of him; also, he did not change the spelling of his last name, which remained "CHOPIN". And if you think that he did become a Pole, then you should bring proof, such as facsimile of his becoming a Pole, which could be considered original research, but which I would love to see, simplement out of curiosity.
The jurists who wrote the French Civil Code were not "some French bureaucrat(s)", no more than those who wrote the United States Constitution or Law of the United States were "some American bureaucrats". Your antagonism against the French is showing through such statements.
Also, Professeur Emmanuel Langavant is the one who did the OR, not Varsovian nor myself.
And, please, someone explain to me why, in the whole of Wikipedia, only Chopin's French nationality is being put under such hair-splitting scrutiny, while similar cases have never been questioned.
--Frania W. (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You tell us, you're the one who keeps going on and on about it.
Kotniski: the reason "I keep going on and on about it", as you so gentlemanly put it, is because you & others keep on refusing to accept the work done by a French jurist from the 1804 Code Napoléon, and his argumentation explaining why Chopin was born French, while there are articles in Wikipedia that recognise the double nationality of other famous people without giving any source for the statement being made. (Please see above & at Chopin talk page for a short list.)
--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The point I keep making is that even if Chopin was a French "national" or "citizen" under French law (and I assume he was), and even if this is confirmed by a reliable source (your self-published professor doesn't count, but I presume there must be one somewhere), this isn't enough to characterize him in the first sentence of the article as half-French.
half-French would not be correct: Chopin was Polish and French, "'à part entière" as the French say, not half & half. Article 10 of the Code in which it said that "a child born outside of France of a Frenchman is French" does not say "half-French".
--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The very fact that all the many biographies of Chopin seem to ignore this issue is in itself compelling evidence that people don't care about such legal questions when characterizing someone's nationality.
The many biographies of Chopin are written by musicologists who may not be aware of the fact that Chopin was Polish & French.
--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Or at least, not in his case (where as you know perfectly well, the nation that he was brought up among and identified with didn't have its own state or a Napoleon who could lay down laws).
But that is not correct, because "the nation that he was brought up among..." was a nation, the Duchy of Warsaw, created by Napoléon (Treaty of Tilsit, 7 July 1807), and where Napoléon had brought the French Code, which applied to Chopin when he was born.
--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You seem to think that because he chose a French passport over a Russian one, that makes him less Polish.
Kotniski! You are putting words in my mouth! I have never written anywhere that Chopin was "less Polish" because he was also French. Please read my previous comments. Chopin was a Pole and a Frenchman. After his arrival in France he had a choice between registering with French authorities as a political refugee, renew his Russian passport & or get a French one to which he had every right since he was French, and he, naturally, chose the passport of his other nationality, instead of registering as a "Polish" political refugee, which he could also have done.)
--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely you can see how illogical that is (and how insulted Chopin himself might be if he were around to hear it).
How can you say that what I am saying is insulting to Chopin? He came to France on his own free will, got a French passport on his own free will, renewed it several times & never tried to go & live anywhere else than in France. So, why would he be insulted if I were to tell him that he was also French since he himself accepted that fact, lived for eighteen years in France and is buried there on his own free will?
--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
He had a French father, that's undeniable, and that ought to be made clear right from the start.
Yes, he had a French father, and that made him automatically French!
--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
But to insist in addition to that that we go with the minority of the reliable sources that describe him as French-Polish rather than the majority that have him as Polish can only be explained as a desire to push what is a very obviously personal point of view.--Kotniski (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not moved by "the desire to push what is a very obviously personal point of view", I am pushed by the desire of having the truth eventually recognised that Frédéric François Chopin was born both French and Polish, which I am not advancing through a "personal point of view", but by my knowledge of French law, both now & at time of Chopin's birth. The majority can be wrong; it also can often be described a flock of sheep that blindly follow a leader into a ravine.
--Frania W. (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
No-one is "right" or "wrong" about this - in a sense he was French, in a sense he was Polish, in a sense he was Duchy or Warsaw-ish (you must surely know that that wasn't what I meant by a "nation"), in a sense he was probably Russian and German too, but the question is how to best characterize him in the lead - what information to give to readers without misleading them, but at the same time without giving undue weight to non-essential facts that belong somewhere in the detail of the article. Wikipedia doesn't serve the purpose you seem to want it to - it isn't supposed to create new narratives, just reflect what reliable published sources say, and where those sources disagree, reflect that disagreement and the relative prominence of the various views. I believe that on the nationality issue this is best done by saying either that he was Polish but (in the same sentence) that one of his parents was French; or by stating explicitly (e.g. through a parenthetical) that though he is most generally described as Polish, there are also sources who have him as Polish-French. Your attachment to the importance of the legal sense (only one of many senses) of nationality is one that the sources don't reflect, so it would be wrong for Wikipedia to reflect it just to satisfy the variously-motivated desires of a few editors. --Kotniski (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You have said your piece & I have said mine, and I am left with the feeling that the opposition to recognise what I have brought to this discussion is not that it is not "wikipediable", but that I have struck the most sensitive nerve of the Polish Resistance at having Frédéric François Chopin be anything but Polish. As I pointed out, in several cases no one seems to care if a second nationality is given the subject of an article - no source given, no question asked. Chopin is the only one being denied a nationality that was his at birth. I am wondering what "variously-motivated desires" Encyclopædia Britannica had "to satisfy" when it gave Chopin as "Polish-French".
  • The Encyclopædia Britannica (Latin for "British Encyclopaedia") is a general English-language encyclopaedia published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., a privately held company. Articles are aimed at educated adults, and written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 expert contributors. It is regarded as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias.
--Frania W. (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am uneasy with Polish born, as it is unclear whether this refers to nationality or citizenship. Chooing between the current and third variant is hard. How about this solution (I'll bold the parts that are changed compared to the current version):

Frédéric François Chopin, in Polish Fryderyk Franciszek Chopin (the surname is pronounced [ʃɔpɛ̃] in French, and usually /ˈʃoʊpæn/ in English; 1 March 1810[1] – 17 October 1849), was a Polish composer and virtuoso pianist of French-Polish parentage and residentship. He was one of the great masters of Romantic music.

Chopin was born in the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw to a French-expatriate father and a Polish mother, and was a child-prodigy pianist and composer. Soon after his birth, in 1815, the Duchy of Warsaw was partitioned between its neighborhoods, with most of it falling to the Russian Empire. Following the Russian suppression of the Polish November 1830 Uprising, Chopin settled in France as part of the Polish Great Emigration. In Paris he supported himself as a composer and piano teacher, giving few public performances. After romantic involvements with several Polish women, from 1837 to 1847 he carried on a relationship with the French novelist, Aurore Dupin, better known by her pseudonym, George Sand. For the greater part of his life Chopin suffered from poor health; he died in Paris, aged 39, of pulmonary tuberculosis.

I think it is important to clarify in the first paragraph that Chopin spend a significant part of his life in France. I also added a sentence that should clarify to the uninformed leader the sudden transition from discussion of the "Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw" to the "Russian suppression of the uprising". Lastly, I added a few ilinks. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately there is little question that a reality check, already backed by sufficient sources, will allow Chopin to be acknowledged as a French-Polish composer and virtuoso pianist. First, by his paternity, and then by his emigration to France where he not only spent a large part of his life, but wrote the majority of his works for which he is most famous. Those are the simple facts. No bias. No nationalism. No fantasies. If anything, this "discussion", which should have ended long ago, might help to improve the encyclopedic quality of the article's lead by concentrating on Chopin's talents and contribution to music. How Poles interpret his music in relation to the Warsaw uprising certainly doesn't belong in the lead any more than the ridiculous..."After romantic involvements with several Polish women..." and might I add that even the gratuitous mention of George Sand in the lead should probably be also reconsidered. In all likelihood, Pauline Strauss was probably more important and significant in the life of Richard Strauss, than George Sand (who ultimately dumped Chopin) was in Chopin's, yet this cigar smoking "feminist" really gets a little too much coverage to begin with, and putting her in the the lead is, IMHO, overkill. In fact, without Chopin, George Sand would hardly be remembered today as even a footnote insofar as having any true notability. Lots of George Sands, very few Chopins. Furthermore, after the Prokonsul Piotrus states his viewpoint and opinion concerning this matter, I believe the discussion should be returned to the Chopin article talk page. Although the Prokonsul is banned from participating at that forum, very few Wikipedians, on English Wikipedia, are familiar or interested in this WikiprojectPoland. We can certainly take his opinion into consideration at that venue. This is certainly not the most neutral arena to resolve this fracas once and for all. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Dan, emigrating to a country, even spending half your life there (as I know from my own personal situation) doesn't make you a member of that nation. Nor does having a parent from that country. I agree that there should be more about music and less biographical detail in the lead (though Sand is perhaps a significant enough figure in his life to deserve some mention).--Kotniski (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Quite right. However, being born a particular nationality to parents who were both at least partly that nationality does tend to make one a member of that nation, especially when one later chooses to move to that nation and live in that nation as a member of that nation and to enjoy all the rights associated with membership of that nation. I say 'tend' because apparently some editors would not be convinced that Chopin was partly French even if they were taken back in time to speak to Chopin and personally told by him that he was partly French: no doubt those editors would dismiss what they had just heard as 'original research' and ask Frédéric Fryderyk to provide some verifiable peer-reviewed reliable sources to confirm what he had just told them. Varsovian (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have some statement by Chopin that implies he regarded himself as partly French? I'd be quite happy to describe him as such if he did himself.--Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

CFD nomination

You may be interested in voicing your opinion at current CFD nomination. The nominator attempts to break the already working categorization scheme about Polish cities and towns (miasta) and put them into "populated places" categories. - Darwinek (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435)

Somebody proposed to rename the Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435) article into "Lithianuan civil war". If you have an opinion please state it on the article's talk page.  Dr. Loosmark  19:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, I can only offer my advice here. Nonetheless, as the creator and principal contributor to that article in years past, I do have a suggestion.
The problem, if this is not a too strong of a term for it (no criticism is intended) can be traced to this old expansion by Renata: [9] which changed the focus of the article from PTW to LCW, and through the article's evolution led to the creation of article which discusses both.
The question is: do we want to split articles into PTW and LCW, or keep one? Arguments can be made for both sides, but the move request focuses on keeping one large article. For that, please note that there are plenty of sources discussing PTW.
Novickas was nice enough to list one source. But he forgot about few more listed years ago at Talk:Polish–Teutonic_War_(1431–1435)#Common_English_name
On a side note, the quote ""This became the cause of a war in 1431 — 1435 between Poland and..." can be expanded with "...Świdrygiełło together with the Teutonic Knights with the help of the Czech Hussites as Poland's allies."
In addition to those, here are several more sources mentioning PTW:
  • Trade and urban development in Poland by Francis W. Carter: page 81 refers to a war between Poland and Teutonic Knights in 1431-35
  • A history of Polish Christianity by Jerzy Kłoczowski: page 72 refers to the Teutonic Knights attack on Poland in 1431
  • Quaestiones medii aevi, Volume 3‎ - Page 131: page 131:
  • The shorter Cambridge medieval history, Volume 2 by Charles William Previté-Orton: "Jagiello now had to deal with revolt in Lithuania and a fresh war with the Teutonic Order (1431-5)" page 1016
  • A concise history of Poland by Jerzy Lukowski, W. H. Zawadzki: page 45: refers to the war of 1431-35 (alongside the wars of 1409-11, 1414, 1422)
And so on. Instead of listing all sources and trying to see if any has a slight advantage, let's try a different approach.
What is more important? The international conflict known as PTW, or the local conflict, known as the LCW? I am afraid we could debate it for ever, and it doesn't seem like the existing literature is of much help. As such, perhaps the "eat the cake and keep the cake" solution is the best. By that, I mean a correct split of the article.
The Lithuanian Civil War was notable on its own - just as the Polish-Teutonic War (1431-1435). A glance on Polish Wikipedia (pl:Wojna polsko-krzyżacka w latach 1431-1435) does show that that article focuses on the Polish front, and lacks most of the details about the Lithuanian civil war presented here. This seems to offer a guide on how to carry out a proper split (leading to the creation of a proper, fleshed, beyond-the-stub PTW and LCW articles). The recent split was certainly not done correctly, as can be seen from comparisons of the two post-split versions:
For example, if the split is along the "Lithuanian" and "international" sections, the "Hussite invasion of Prussia" section certainly belongs to the PTW, and there is no reason to remove most of the background and aftermath, which are common to both articles. The Polish wiki article serves as a good guide as to what, roughly, should be in the PLT article, and only briefly mentioned in the LCW article (which could have a section on "International theatre" or such). In the same manner, it is certainly correct that details of the Lithuanian campaign (Coup in Lithuania, Decisive battle) should be described in detail in the LCW article, and only be summarized briefly in the PLT article (do note that the post-split version ignored them).
To summarize, my recommendation is: do a proper split, not a move. A new subarticle, LCW should be created, based on sections of the PLW. The sections split should be summarized (not cut) in the PTW article, and there is also some content at the pl wikipedia article that is not present in the PLW one that should be translated. This should satisfy all the parties, and at the same time be the most encyclopedic solution (as both LCW and PLT terms are notable and yet somewhat different, per PManderson analogy there to WWII and the Great Patriotic War). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
PS. As far as I can tell, there is no work which mentions either the PTW or the LCW in the title (at least, not in English). The "On the civil war of 1432-1440" seems to be part of a regular sentence ([12]) and in fact it is not clear if it refers to the same civil war (the dates differ, and the source focuses on the Ruthenians - see page 18). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with the two separate articles idea. But how to execute it. Piotrus, you could write a new article focusing on the PL-Teutonic angle. You email it to somebody, they post it in their userspace. (This looks aboveboard enough to satisfy the terms of Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_users) Then we rename the current article LT civil war (1430-1440), move the new article into Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435), and ask some knowledgleable person to fix up the article histories. How's that? Novickas (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
In principle, yes. I'd like to help, and indeed, in the past, I'd have already written/translated/split content as suggested above. In practice, I am afraid some may consider me creating an article and emailing it to somebody can be seen as breaking the topic ban (in theory you are right that it should be ok under this but in practice and my experience this is (sadly) not a policy that is well respected). You could ask for an arbitration clarification, but till I hear otherwise I am assuming somebody will see it as such and complain. I can write such an article in my userspace on Polish Wikipedia, and you could file for an amendment that you, I or others can move transwiki it from there as was done with Lech Wałęsa (details). Or you could ask for an amendment to allow me to edit those two articles here directly. I am afraid that those are the only two ways I could help at this point (other than offering suggestions here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Request for clarification posted at an Arbcom page here [13]. I would still request that you not edit the current article, and leave the new article's subsequent editing to others. Novickas (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Arb clarification wasn't the right place, someone removed it. Apparently it should have gone in Requested Amendments. [14] So P. could ask the editors involved in that amendment to do it again. Alternatively, or as a short term solution, I'd be willing to put this User:Novickas/Polish-Teutonic War (1431-1435) in as a replacement (a trsnlation of the PL WP article [15].) Novickas (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
For a few days after the move was closed, the article Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435) was a redirect to the LT civil war; it's now been recreated, mostly by translation of the corresponding PL WP article. Novickas (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Participants list

"Activity is checked periodically, last time in March 2009" - Should be reviewed or removed.Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I plan on checking it at soon as I can. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Chopin vs Sawoniuk

Would anybody care to explain why Chopin is currently described as Polish (and can not be described as Polish-French) despite having a French father while, according to some editors, Antony Sawoniuk (who had a Polish mother, may or may not have had a Polish father but we don't know the father's nationality or even the father's true identity, was in the Polish police force and was in the Polish army) is not to be described as Polish? Varsovian (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

SOURCES.--Kotniski (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sources confirm that: Sawoniuk's mother was Polish, Sawoniuk was born in Poland, Sawoniuk had a Polish birth certificate, Sawoniuk joined the Polish army, Sawoniuk was in the Polish police force, and Sawoniuk viewed himself as a Polish patriot. What else would you like sources to state about Sawoniuk's Polishness? Varsovian (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing - all that information is in the article (except the Polish police force - did you mean that?) (Well, of course we don't know that he "viewed himself" as a Polish patriot, only that he "posed" as one, which is what the article says.) As long as you don't keep making silly insertions which cause the same information to be repeated in the same sentence, I don't think there will be any problems with this article.--Kotniski (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Polish-born is not the same as 'born in Poland', as hundreds of the Vietnamese who were born in Warsaw can tell you. Sawoniuk was born in Poland and was Polish-born, no matter how much some people wish he wasn't. This is what the source you have deleted makes clear, although that is not why you deleted it (just to make clear that I WP:AGF). Varsovian (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
So what do you think the newspaper meant by "Polish-born"? I don't see anything in the context to indicate it means anything other than "born in Poland", which is how past discussion has shown most people understand that phrase.--Kotniski (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not ask me to interpret what sources are trying to say. We use what sources say, not what we think they mean. The phrase "Polish-born" is precisely what the source says, which is why I put it into the article. The source does not say "born in Poland". Please take care not to infer meaning which sources do not contain. Varsovian (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
That's effectively what you're doing, if you're stating in the same sentence which already says that he was "born in ...Poland" that he was "Polish-born" - you're effectively telling readers that in addition to being born in Poland he was also "Polish-born" in some additional sense (what that sense might be apparently exists only in your mind). It just makes for a stupid-sounding sentence, and I don't like to see Wikipedia made to look stupid just to satisfy someone who's unashamedly pursuing an agenda.--Kotniski (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
‘Polish-born’ and ‘born in Poland’ are simply not the same thing. Please see jus sanguinis and Polish nationality law. Simply put: a child born in Poland to parents who are not Polish citizens is not a Polish citizen (unless it would otherwise be stateless). That was why I mentioned above Vietnamese people who were born in Warsaw I know a couple who were but are not Polish citizens. The source says “Polish-born” and that is what the article needs to reflect. And don’t worry, after consulting WP:MOSBIO I see that places of birth and death should not be mentioned in the opening paragraph anyway, so you don’t need to worry about the sentence sounding stupid.
One final note: kindly withdraw your accusation that I am editing in bad faith (“I don't like to see Wikipedia made to look stupid just to satisfy someone who's unashamedly pursuing an agenda.”). If you fail to do so, I will request that you are notified of DIGWUREN sanctions. Varsovian (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The only source you have produced so far is 1 (with word: one) newspaper article. Your inability to produce any other sources is the best proof that Sawoniuk's nationality is several light years from being certain.  Dr. Loosmark  12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Varsovian please provide a reliable source which says that "Sawoniuk is purely Polish", "more Polish than Chopin" and "if he (the war criminal Sawoniuk) isn't Polish, neither is Chopin". If you fail to do so I will report you.  Dr. Loosmark  17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source which describes Sawoniuk as anything other than Polish. There are many sources which describe Chopin as "Polish-French". If being born in Poland to a Polish mother doesn't make Sawoniuk Polish (even though he also fought for Poland in the Polish army and served Poland in the Polish police), what makes Chopin (born in Poland to a Polish mother but didn't fight for Poland and I'm not aware that he served Poland in any civil service role) Polish? As for reports, might you be trying to distract attention from yet another warning you this week received [16] despite being under a DIRWIGEN official caution? Varsovian (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
As you well know, there are countless sources that describe Chopin as Polish, but so far apparently not even one that describes Sawoniuk as Polish (all the articles I've looked at pointedly refrain from ascribing him any sort of nationality). Why is this? Could it possibly be that the criteria you like to use for determining people's nationality are not the ones which actually function in the real world? --Kotniski (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a very good reason why the article does not describe Sawoniuk as Polish: you have deleted the source which describes him as Polish (as in "Polish-born"). The criteria used to determine Polish nationality are quite clear, perhaps you would like to read about them at Polish nationality law? Sawoniuk was born to an unwed Polish mother and so under Article 5 of the Polish citizenship Act which came into force on 31 January 1920 ("Legitimate children acquire by birth their father´s citizenship. Illegitimate children acquire by birth their mother´s citizenship.") he was born a Polish citizen. That fact is reflected in the source which you have deleted describing him as "Polish-born". Varsovian (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Sawoniuk was not born to a Polish mother, that's what one newspaper article claims. Find at least some other sources, preferably a book or something like that.  Dr. Loosmark  12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have even a single source which states that Sawoniuk was not born to a Polish mother? Varsovian (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a single source which states that Sawoniuk was not an elephant either. However I do not have to prove what Sawoniuk was not. You are trying to argue that Sawoniuk was beyond doubt Polish therefore the burden of proof is on you. So far in spite of your best efforts the only thing you have shown us is 1 newspaper article.  Dr. Loosmark  13:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Two newspaper articles actually confirm that he was Polish born. Which is two more than say he was any other nationality. Sorry. Varsovian (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the Polish Citizen Act 1920 which came in force on 31 January 1920, Sawoniuk, who was born on 7 March 1921 in Domaczewo, at the time in Poland, would have been born a Polish citizen, unless someone can prove his mother was not Polish, and also depending which was in vigour in 1920
  • jus sanguinis: Pole because born of a Polish parent (his mother), or
  • jus soli: Pole because born on Polish soil:
Polish citizenship Act 1920
Act on Polish State’s citizenship, January 20, 1920
(came into force on 31 January 1920)
Dziennik Ustaw - rok 1920, nr 7, poz. 44
(Journal of Laws, 1920 year, No 7, item 44)
--Frania W. (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
And what citizenship did he hold when he did what he was notable for? (Presumably Soviet when he committed his crimes, and British when he was tried for them.) But again - so what? How can we make these deductions when no reliable source does? Like with Chopin (but the other way round this time - this time the person is bad, so he has to be proven to be Polish), it's exactly what the OR policy forbids.--Kotniski (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The sources say that the subject was Polish-born[17](not 'born in Poland', which is something very different under Polish law), born illegitimate[18] to a Polish mother [19] and an unknown father[20], had a Polish birth certificate[21], fought in the Polish army[22] and described himself as Polish[23]. Why the subject would hold Soviet nationality in 1942 is utterly beyond me. We certainly have no sources which state he did and we have none which state he held British citizenship (there is discussion about that on the article's talk page). Varsovian (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Which again, is eactly the same number that state that he had Polish citizenship. (Soviet citizenship: because the Soviets automatically made all inhabitants of the part of Poland they annexed Soviet citizens - we've been through that before with someone else).--Kotniski (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Citizenship is irrelevant here: WP:MOSBIO requires "Nationality and ethnicity". The subject was a Polish national and was ethnically Polish. Therefore the lead should say that he was Polish (his possible Jewish ethnicity is covered in the body of the text). Varsovian (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Whether a nice guy or a bad guy, I was only trying to show what he was when he was born, not what he became after Soviet annexation.
--Frania W. (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right: he was Polish born. Which is why we have a source stating he was "Polish born"[24].... Varsovian (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have proven that British journalists are ignorant regarding Eastern Europe. No, you haven't proven that Andriusha was "Polish-born". I don't discuss ethnicity of Welsh people using Polish sources, please don't spread British prejudices toward Poles.Xx236 (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC) BTW - If a "Polish death camp" means (allegedly) a German camp constructed in Poland, the same "Polish born" means a Belarussian born in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Many Belarussian sources informed about Sawoniuk's case and none of them called him Polish. Xx236 (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Polish nationality law doesn't inform about the law of the Second Republic.Xx236 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, if you have problems with the ignorance of British journalists, please take that to WP:RSN. The sources state that Sawoniuk was "Polish born" "illegitimate" to a "Polish mother", had a "Polish birth certificate" and "described himself as Polish". The best source those who claim he wasn't a Pole can offer is one saying that he was in the "Blue Police in/of Belarus". And I tried to link to the citizenship law of the Second Republic (i.e. that of 1920) but my text and link were deleted from the article. Varsovian (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a small correction: according to the source he was member of the Belorussian Blue Police. Also yesterday I presented sources which say that he was an "emigrant from Belarus" and "Belorussian policeman". As we can see sources are not clear regarding his nationality, the sources from Google Books says emigrant from Belarus, while the source local British newspaper which you presented calls him Polish born. Btw every person born in Poland gets a Polish birth certificate, non Poles too, so it's not quite sure what's your point there.  Dr. Loosmark  14:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Please don't lie about sources: The Independent is not a local newspaper, it is a well-respected national newspaper in the UK. As regards your assertion that he was an "emigrant from Belarus", please see [25] where I discuss the 'from Belarus' issue. It is perfectly correct to state that Sawoniuk was from what is now Belarus but when he was born there, it was Poland (and it remained de jure Poland for all the time he was there). As for "Belorussian policeman", are you still insisting that "granatowej policji białoruskiej" actually translates to "Belorussian Police"? Have a look at Blue Police, then read the description of the uniform Sawoniuk wore. Varsovian (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about an article from 1999 from the Birmingham Post which you provided yesterday. Please do no accuse me of lying about sources, as it is uncivil. Also I did not make any assertion that he is an "emigrant from Belarus", that's what the source say. If you have a problem with the source I can only repeat your advise to User:Xx236: please take to WP:RSN. And I am not insisting on anything, I only follow what the sources say, the first says that he was in the "Belorussian blue police" and the second he that was a "Belorussian policeman". We should follow what the sources say, if you have problem with the sources again please take it to WP:RSN.  Dr. Loosmark  16:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Kruszwica history section uncited

The entire Kruszwica History section is word for word from a 1917 Polish History book, "Political History of Poland", E.H. Lewinski-CorwinNew York, Polish Book Importing Company, 1917. Pages 5-8. I may just have overlooked it somehow, but it appears no citation or credit is given to this book, or its author, as the source of this section's material. A simple citation seems appropriate.

I am new to the page discussion/editing aspect of Wikipedia, so if I am going about incorrectly in inquiring about this issue, please instruct me as to the proper procedure. Thanks. --MeckPomm (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Small typographical errors and learning about edit function. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeckPomm (talkcontribs) 17:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing incorrect! What needs to be done: click on the blue edit link at the rightmost top of the References section, then insert as its first line: This article incorporates text from The political history of Poland (1917) by Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin, a publication now in the public domain. This is usually italicized which you can do by putting two single quotes before and after it. If you run into a problem, post again. Novickas (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be even better to add inline citations after verification of sentences. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Poles in the Wehrmacht, Anthony Sawoniuk

The article is POV, it's goal is to accuse "Polish collaborators", who weren't frequently Polish or were rather victims than collaborators. This Wikipedia doesn't discuss French people in the Wehrmacht nor Czechs in the Wehrmacht (Sudentengermans).

An example of a Polish collaborator is in this Wikipedia Anthony Sawoniuk, the article recently rewritten on the basis of , which claims that his mother was Polish but he was nicknamed "Andrusha". Maybe for a British journalist "Andrusha" is a typical Polish name, not for me. Can someone explain me, why the article discusses Sawoniuk's citizenship? What citizenship could have a village boy around 1921? Xx236 (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Poles in the Wehrmacht certainly does have some factual errors. I'll go through some other sources and add the correct facts. Please note that the article on Sawoniuk does not state that he was in the Wehrmacht, it states that he was in the police (a fact on which Sawoniuk agreed). However he maintained that his police unit carried out 'anti-partisan' operations, while a British court found that he had actually taken part in the holocaust. I have left a note regarding the sentence you object to at the talkpage for that article. Please also note that the article actually now links to seven separate sources, not just one.Varsovian (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Do "correct facts" include that Andriusha Sawoniuk was Polish?Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Born in Poland to a Polish mother and a father of unknown nationality. That makes him more Polish than Chopin! Chopin's father was known not to be Polish and Chopin didn't serve in the Polish army. If Sawoniuk isn't Polish, neither is Chopin. But please don't 'correct' the Chopin article. As far as I can see, Poles in the Wehrmacht doesn't so much as mention Sawoniuk. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the topic of this section or start another one in which to discuss another topic? Varsovian (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly has a war criminal to do with F.Chopin!?  Dr. Loosmark  13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely nothing. Other than the fact that if he isn't Polish, neither is Chopin. Clearly Chopin is at least partly Polish. Unless we can find a source which says that Sawoniuk's father was a nationality other than Polish, Sawoniuk is purely Polish. Varsovian (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"Sawoniuk is purely Polish". Do you have a reliable source for that claim or is that yet again your personal opinion?  Dr. Loosmark  14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
His mother was Polish. We know that. We do not know what nationality his father was. If his father was Belarussian, Sawoniuk would be Polish-Belarussian. If his father was French, Sawoniuk would be Polish-French (just like Chopin). We know that Sawoniuk was a Polish national and we know that he was in the Polish police and the Polish army. What nationality would you like him to be? And more importantly, what sources do you have to back that stance? Varsovian (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
And even more importantly, what sources do you have to back your stance?? I don't see anyone else making any claims about his nationality.--Kotniski (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
As noted above, the Independent. Varsovian (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Independent article you cite above doesn't support any of your claims except that his mother was Polish.--Kotniski (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Loosmark was nice enough to give me a source about the subject being in the Polish police in Belarus (although Loosmark mistranslated the source as saying that the subject was in the "Belarusian police", a most unfortunate mistake) source (diff, I'm not accusing Loosmark of misconduct but I do need to be careful of my sanctions and anybody misunderstanding my comments and concluding that I am accusing Loosmark of deliberately mistranslating the article, which I am not doing).) Varsovian (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
As far the only source that Sawoniuk's mother was Polish is The Independent, a very competent source in Polish matters, eg. "Polish death camp", „The Independent on Sunday”, 16.01.2005., 20.12.2009 "southern Polish death camp" (which may be geographical). The last name Sawoniuk is Belarussian and the family was probably Orthodox. Xx236 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
As noted on the talkpage of the article: if you have issues with the reliability of the source, please take it to WP:RSN. Varsovian (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This source states "Sawoniuk, born in 1921, described himself as Polish.

He was one of the ethnic minorities which made up about ten per cent of the town's population. Although there were Poles, Ukranians, Belorussians and German `Volkdeutsch' - all speaking their own languages - the majority of Domachevo's 5,000 population was Jewish." Varsovian (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another UK Newspaper?  Dr. Loosmark  16:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have any problems with British newspapers being used as reliable sources, please discuss that here: WP:RSN. Thank you. Varsovian (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He was a Polish citizen till WWII. If we have a source about his ethnicity, or multiple sources, cite them. I find it interesting that Polish wiki claims he was Belorussian, but Google Translation of Belorussian entry indicates that Belorussian entry also claims him as Belorussian (not Polish...). Do we have a reliable source for his Belorussian ethnicity? I don't have time to look for them, but I'd expect that the technical correct description would be Polish citizen of Belorussian ethnicity (till WWII). After WWII, his citizenship likely changed; note that his village was first a part of the Belorussian SSR (Brest Voblast), then (at the time of his crime), of the Reichskommissariat Ostland. I am pretty sure that Soviets decreed all Polish citizens became Soviet citizens on the occupied territories. I am not sure what happened in R. Ostland. How to describe it in the lead... I am not sure (but footnotes are always an option).

And yes, the irony of "everybody wants Chopin, nobody wants Sawoniuk" is hardly lost on me - and hardly new, this is not the first time such an issue came up. Ethnicity and nationality distinctions can be controversial and confusing (if we argue about citizenship alone, then Sawoniuk was Polish, but consider also - what was the most numerous group of people who died in the Holocaust...?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You might suspect that he was a "Polish citizen of Belorussian ethnicity" but according to a WP:RS [26] he described himself as Polish, not Belorussian. The only reference we currently have to his mother describes her as Polish but we don't know if that means by ethnicity or by nationality or both. Rumour in the town was that his father was Jewish (as the article states). Varsovian (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't put too much weight on that - since after escaping to the West he wanted to enter the Polish II Corps describing himself as anything but Polish would not have worked too much.  Dr. Loosmark  20:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting theory. Do you have any sources to support it? The only source currently in the article says that he used his Polish birth certificate to join the 10th Hussars. Varsovian (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Sources about him being Belorussian are not that hard to find (in Polish): [27], [28]. The refs have the reliability of an average newspaper report (but I don't think we have any better for the nationality...?). Anyway, I find it interesting that most reliable sources discussing him (or, in fact, all I looked at - at [29] (which I recommend interested editors review and use instead of the less accurate newspaper reports) simply don't mention his nationality. Outside Wikipedia, fortunately, it is not important. Oh, somebody should add {{Cleanup-link rot}} to the article (or fix the problem). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Strangely, it is easier to find French sources about Chopin being French than Polish sources about the same thing. Varsovian (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Strange indeed. One then wonders why a webpage was used as a source that Chopin was French during the discussions on the Chopin article talk page.  Dr. Loosmark  21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
More than a webpage was used as a source that Chopin was French, but everything was ignored. It just happened that the webpage was written by a jurist who knows what he is talking about & explained the à propos of the 1804 Code Napoléon, which you rejected as written by "French bureaucrats", just like the US Constitution must have been written by a bunch of American bureaucrats, I imagine.
--Frania W. (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that you should use [30] as a source which supports the claim that Sawoniuk was Belorussian. Apart from the fact mentioned below that PL WP asserts that the Blue Police was (with the exception of one unit) never described as "Polish", I note that PL WP states that most officers (Sawoniuk was an officer) in western Belarus were Poles. Varsovian (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"most"? The article says "up to 40%". Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sawoniuk's father was a schoolmaster. He was Jewish but he represented the Polish state, he had to be Polonized. Sawoniuk's step-brother is Orthodox and in Belarus Poles are Roman-Catholics. It's possible that the mother married an Orthodox man.

No Belarus source labels Sawoniuk as Polish. Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sawoniuk's father is unknown (as many sources state). Local gossip was that the father was the schoolmaster but that is purely gossip. Your speculation about the religion of Poles in Belarus is interesting but irrelevant: we are talking about Poland; in interbellum Poland there were Orthodox Poles and in postwar Poland there are Orthodox Poles. And even if there were none, you would still need to provide a RS which states that all Polish people who lived in interbellum Poland were Catholic and that not being Catholic means that a person there then was not Polish. And even if you could provide such a source, it will still be only about Sawoniuk's half-brother. Your speculation about who his mother might have married is equally un-useful, the sources I've seen refer to her as being unmarried and that she died while Sawoniuk was a child, leaving him to be raised by his grandmother (maternal obviously). Varsovian (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"Purely gossip" comes from Sawoniuk's brother. Sawoniuk's mother cleaned the school, apparently the job included some extra tasks. At least Sawoniuk believed to have a bad Jewish father.
Your comment about my "irrelevant speculations" is irrevelant, I'm writing about mixed nationality/religion areas in the East, where the situation was totally different than eg. in Kalisz, where Orthodox people were mainly Russian officials and soldiers. Being Catholic meant in the East being Polish till being executed as a Pole.
Your "sources" inform continously about "Polish death camps". Happy "sources" (or rather "pure gossip").Xx236 (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As noted above several times, if you have issues with regard to the reliability of sources such as the BBC, The Independent and the Guardian, WP:RSN. As to you claims regarding Orthodox religion, do you have any sources which say that Sawoniuk can't have been Polish because he was Orthodox? If not, we can't put your claims into the article (for precisely the same reason that we aren't even allowed to mention that under the 1920 Polish citizenship law an illegitimate child born in Poland to a Polish mother is Polish and so Sawoniuk was born a Polish citizen, despite the fact that we have a source which explicitly states that Sawoniuk was born Polish). Varsovian (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Which another article in this Wikipedia discusses the citizenship of a child? What makes Sawoniuk so exceptional? Would you please learn about Eastern Poland (Kresy) customs if you want to discuss the subject? I don't discuss Welsh problems, because I know very little about Welsh problems. Yes, I have problems with "Polish death camps" propaganda of British media. Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on Polish nationality law discusses the citizenship of children. If you have issues with the BBC, The Independent and the Guardian being "propaganda", please take them to WP:RSN. I note that you have provided no sources which support your suggestion that Sawoniuk can't have been Polish because his half-brother was Orthodox. Varsovian (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Polish Auxiliary Police

The article was just created by user:Bandurist. Isn't that the same as the Blue Police? The article lacks inline citations too.  Dr. Loosmark  23:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes; note that he uses the same pictures. It is a poorly written content WP:CONTENTFORK and as such, I recommend speedy redirect, after merging the few new and referenced sentences on the subject, after verification (for example, the last para of the first sections seems like it can be rescued, but the beginning "The Polish Auxiliary Police and Polish Auxiliary Police were" suggests that there may be factual errors - so verification of sources is necessary prior to any merger. PS. That said, the article is not only a content fork, it is a strange mix of several articles. The paragraphs on Selbschutz should probably be split into a new article. PS. It is possible Bandurist intended to write on Hilfspolizei - the section on Hilfspolizei#General_Government_.28occupied_Poland.29 needs expansion, but he most certainly confused several related subjects, see also Talk:Schutzmannschaft. PPS. On that note, I see than an anon redirect my article on Hilfspolizei to Schutzmannschaft ([31]) - frankly, I am not sure if this redirect was correct (we could use a German speaker and history expert on this). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I also see there is a discussion at Talk:Polish Auxiliary Police - please inform the editors there that we also have a discussion here. I will also add that Polish Wikipedia has no article on "Polish Auxiliary Police"; from pl:Policja_Polska_Generalnego_Gubernatorstwa_(1939-1944)#Podobne_formacje (Blue Police#Other formations section): "Poles, Ukrainians, Belorusians and others were also drafted into German auxiliary police units... those units where however never described as "Polish", with a singular exception of the infamous Polnisches Schutzmannschaftsbataillon 202." (and perhaps the few other units listed here). If this is however what the article intends to describe, it is hardly clear (from the messy state it is in), plus, the name is likely wrong (unofficial). I'd suggest expanding this section and seeing if a literature offers hints for a better name (cursory glance at the literature sees that term used in lower capital cases, suggesting it is rather generic, and not very specific). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It is interesting that Polish Wikipedia should state that Blue Police units were never described as "Polish". This Polish source contains the words "granatowej policji białoruskiej" and it has been claimed by more than one Polish speaking editor that this means "Belorussian Police". Strange that the Blue Police were never called Polish but clearly have been called Belorussian. It's also strange that they should be called "blue", Pl WP says that the Belarusian Auxiliary Police wore black uniforms. Varsovian (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote again. I said that the pl wikipedia says that formations other than Blue Police where not known as Polish. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Mme. Hanska's Name

Hello, folks working on Poland-related articles! I'm setting out to FA-ify (eventually) the article on the wife of Honoré de Balzac, Madame Ewelina Hańska. First on my radar is the spelling of her name. As I've noted over at the article talk page, every book I've read about M. de Balzac spells her name "Eveline". (And always without the accent on the "n" in Hańska.) I'm wondering why the Wikipedia article is so different, and if anyone would mind a move (or provide a citation for the spelling as we see it here). Thanks in advance for your help! Scartol • Tok 22:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The name seems used, including in English works, see Google Book Search and search for "Ewelina Hańska" (wiki doesn't like the Google Book Search URLs anymore, I am afraid, they seem broken recently). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's used, but it's much less common (certainly in the texts which focus on her life) than Eveline. WP:EN says the following: "If one name is clearly most commonly used in the English-language references for the article, we should probably use it." Ergo, it seems to me that "Eveline Hańska" would be the one to go with. Scartol • Tok 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
True. I was never that fond of the application of common names to people (diacritics, for example, are not that common, due to technical reasons), but she is an aristocrat, and those are a class (of problems, naming wise) in themselves. I would not oppose a move (I assume the old name will be kept in the lead as the second bolder alternative), and I might support it if it could be shown that best sources about her use the spelling you discuss. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think in this particular case "Eveline" is indeed used by majority of English language sources, though "Ewalina" is not infrequent either. I believe Britannica uses "Eveline". I think moving it to "Eveline Hańska" and including "Ewalina" in the lead of the article is fine.radek (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
"Ewelina".Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. I'll make the move later, when I've written the article itself. =) Thanks for your feedback. Scartol • Tok 11:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

German names for Polish villages

user:HerkusMonte started a mass campaign to add German names into the lead of small Polish villages: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] and so on and so forth. I have never seen such a mammoth size campaign before and I believe it should have been discussed first. I think it's especially problematic that he also adds into the lead separate names which were invented in 1938 by Nazi Germany. I think we should discuss and try to reach a consensus about this. I will invite user:HerkusMonte to give his opinion on the matter.  Dr. Loosmark  17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you think is problematic about this? It seems standard practice. It's your reverts that I don't see any reason for.--Kotniski (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I think as well, it is a standard practice for villages, which has been historically part of Prussia/Germany or were inhabited by German minority. It is used throughout the WP in articles about villages from various countries - Darwinek (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Standard practice? To have names invented in the Nazi period (1938) in the lead? Interesting practice I have to say... I wonder if German wiki has them as well.  Dr. Loosmark  18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Neo-Nazi propaganda or attempt to provoke Polish users? Adding names invented by the Germans Nazis for Polish towns and villages during the Nazi occupation of Poland is a pure Nazi propaganda or bloody provocation. Urgent admin. attention is required here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
While giving Germanised names for Polish cities that were under German control before 1945 is allowed per rules of Wikipedia, adding in the lead names given by Nazis seems very inappropriate. Using that logic, we would have to give German names to ALL cities in Poland as it was fully under German control in WW2-for instance Warschau for Warsaw, Litzmanstadt for Łódż and so on.I would prefer to mention Nazi changed name in the proper context of the name change(germanisation campaign or honours for Prussian/German Empire/Nazi leaders) in the main text rather than in the lead.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I would assume good faith and wouldn't speculate on the reasons. However I'd like to know under what circumstances were those villages renamed in Nazi Germany in 1938, and what exactly is the rationale of having those names, which were used only for a brief period (1938 to 1944/45), in the lead. Those aren't exactly some historical names.  Dr. Loosmark  19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec)The first sentence is where readers are likely to be looking for past names. Another possibility, if the naming situation with a particular place is more complex, is to create a separate section of the article (and put something like "(see Names below)" in the first sentence to draw readers' attention to it), but I don't see any particular point in doing that here. As long as it's made clear in the first sentence that these names applied only for a limited time, I don't think readers are going to be misled or significantly distracted. But removing the information altogether can't be right to the encyclopedia. (I made exactly the same point the other day to another editor who was removing Polish names from Lithuania-related articles - it would be good if editors of different nationalities worked together in cooperation or friendly rivalry to make the encyclopedia better, not keep seeing conspiracy every time information is added by the "enemy".)--Kotniski (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Polish names in Lithuania are historical, the ones introduced around 1937 were part of Nazi policy and replaced historical ones.

Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that while Germanised names can stay, those given during Germany's Nazi period should be moved to the main text with explanation. Notice that Łódż doesn't have Litzmanstadt in its lead.What do you think?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Nazi names for occupied Polish places are probably not interesting enough in themselves (unless they were notorious for a concentration camp or something), but for long-time German places, once you've given the established German name - which undoubtedly does belong in the lead - I find it misleading to omit the Nazi/de-Slavicized one, since otherwise we're giving the false information that "the" German name was X. (We really need articles on these various name-changing campaigns, to link to to explain the context of the name changes. We don't need another battleground.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Kotniski, I am not advocating removing the Nazi name altogether, but rather removing it from the lead of the article. Otherwise soon somebody will add "Stalinogród" into Katowice's article lead.  Dr. Loosmark  19:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not for removing it, but for placing it in the main text of the article, along with explanation as to the nature of the change, don't you think that move would actually improve encyclopedic value of the article? Also I am interested in source of the information HerkusMonte is putting into those articles. Perhaps we should ask for sources to ensure these names are correct.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

For places in East Prussia it makes sense to have the old German names. However, there is no good reason that I can think of to have the Nazi German names - where they differ from the older ones - in the lede. I can see in articles that have already been adequately developed including the fact that the names were changed under the Nazis, as well as an explanation as to why. So what was the motivation for changing those names? Why did "Zawoyken" become "Lilienfelde" (both German names) or "Wujaken" become "Ohmswalde"? Were the previous names just not-German-enough-too-Slavic sounding or something? Which administrative unit in the Nazi government made these kinds of decisions? Etc. On that note, I'd also like to note that none of these changes have been sourced.radek (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that while Germanised names can stay - if only the Wikipedia Lithuanian editors were as reasonable and willing to compromise as that. If we were to follow their example, then we'd simply remove all references to the German names (or Germany for that matter) with edit summary of "undo" and no other explanation. Alas, I agree with Kotniski and MyMoloboaccount here and personally I favor consistency and fairness.radek (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

1.Well, Radeksz, that's exactly what Loosmark did, full reverts without explanation or with a simple comment: "unnecessary info" [55]
2.WP:PLACE#General guidelines is absolutely clear about historic names: "#The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names 2)... used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order".
3.We should not mix up the situation in pre-war Germany and occupied Poland. A lot of names of villages and towns were already changed before 1933, e.g. 47 % of all village names in the district of Lötzen were already changed in the Weimar Republic (see also: Andreas Kossert: Mazury, Zapomniane południe Prus Wschodnich)
4.The "Nazi names" were the official names and somebody born in that area will still find this name in his passport. These names are still in use and that's why it's necessary to mention them.
5.The source is M. Kaemmerer, Ortsnamenverzeichnis der Ortschaften jenseits von Oder u. Neiße, ISBN 3-7921-0368-0.[56] HerkusMonte (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Many Nazi crimes were also legal. "Hitlersee" isn't legal in Poland and has been removed from a monument in the village. Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Re#1&2 - In my experience I find that that particular guideline is not followed closely, or much at all in fact, especially when it comes to Polish or Yiddish names being the "alternative names". Loosmark was following general practice, as she exists. It seems like the guideline is only applied when it comes to foreign names in Polish places, but never vice versa. Sort of like some folks enforce the Gdansk/Danzig vote when it comes to putting in German names in Polish historical articles, but never the other way around.
Re#4 - it's not necessary, though in some cases it may be interesting enough to include. But no reason for it to be in the lead. Put it in the article text. And explain why and how.
Re#3&5 - Do the sources discuss why the names were changed from previous German names to new German names?radek (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the guideline is followed quite widely, and certainly should be, since it helps give readers key information clearly. That there may have been nasty campaigns to remove Polish names from articles on places to the east is no reason to "retaliate" by removing German names from articles on Polish places - the problem of Polish-name removal needs to be addressed in itself. I still don't see any particular problem with these Nazi-era names being in the first sentence (though that's not the only alternative); like I said before, giving only one German name could be misleading.--Kotniski (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that the guideline should be followed, though I disagree on the extent to which it actually is. And I don't think the problem of Polish-name removal CAN BE addressed separately, particularly since sometimes it's the SAME editors who support adding the German names and removing the Polish names, and support each other. The whole thing should be dealt with comprehensively, otherwise these silly little disputes are going to keep flaring up.radek (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
This Wikipedia seems to be divided into several projects, in one Germans are "expelled", in another one Poles are "repatriated, transferred or resettled". Gdańsk can be "Danzig" but Vilnius is always Vilnius. The "letters contain the first unambiguous reference to Vilnius as the capital" - Vilnius? The letters are available in Lithuanian (originally Latin), so I am not able to verify.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So the truth is I do not understand what is this discussion about. Place names in other languages we have in interwiki.

I did not notice any recommendations that the articles about the Polish towns are to be translated into German. If we give the name in German, why can not be given, equally, in the English language, Russian, or Arabic? The reasons are purely subjective and I do not think that can be resolved.

I propose to add a table with the names of places in other languages and colloquialisms, or dialect. Otherwise, I see no point in naming the outside of the original.--WlaKom (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Some users unfortunately still see a problem having a German name in the lead for villages, which has been in Poland only since 1945. Also please, do not mix up terms "German" and "Nazi". - Darwinek (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your point about mixing up the terms "German" and "Nazi". Please note that some of those villages were added 2 names: one "historical" German and another German which was changed to in 1938 (well allegedly, as no sources were provided). Now unless you can demonstrate that the entity which existed in 1938 was not Nazi Germany I am not quite sure what you mean.  Dr. Loosmark  11:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
To made myself very clear. Original German names should stay for sure, no opinion though on WWII-era Nazi names. Those are two different issues. - Darwinek (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Original German names should stay for sure - for East Prussia, sure. But a lot of time this kind of thing is taken farther, for example with Bydgoszcz or Poznań which were only under German rule during the partitions and during the Nazi occupation. Or the German name is peppered throughout the article without regard to style or aesthetics just to "mark it". Or the word "German" occurs 7 times in a single sentence in the lead, just so you know... etc. (In fairness, some of these quite real examples were due to a now banned anon editor - though I keep finding his "work" in many articles still).radek (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, not only for East Prussia. Going to the times before partitions is ridiculous, in this manner, no "foreign" names could be applied for 90% of articles about villages of most European countries. Polish people unfortunately forget often that these territories were not only under German administration but they were ethnically mostly German or mixed. That's why plenty of names are used in the lead - because of factual demographic presence of other ethnic group than Poles. That's why e.g. Lesko has Yiddish name in the lead, though the town was never administered by Jewish state entity, nor Jews live there today. - Darwinek (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I didn't say "only" East Prussia. Rather, the point was that there are some places where German names probably belong in the lead, and then there are other places - which currently have them - where they don't but they're there essentially due to nationalistic POV pushing and German irredentism. Of course there's a good number of places (in Silesia, Pomerania (or Pomerelia or whatever)) where it's in between and somewhat of a judgement call. And again - the important thing is that whatever the reason for inclusion, it is spelled out clearly and it gets followed consistently when it comes to other places, like present day Lithuanian towns with historically large Polish populations.radek (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You are right. Still I think some "unified stance" could not be achieved due to very nature of Wikipedia. You are right also pointing out the correct example of Polish names for Lithuanian municipalities. Attitude of Lithuanian editors is largely worrying and I've never met similar stance of such extent throughout the WP. "Minority names" are not a problem in articles about Swedish, German, Austrian, Czech, Slovak or Hungarian towns. The only problem seems to be with Lithuania. - Darwinek (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem also happens with double naming for East Prussian cities-for example giving the name Królewiec in case of events connected to Polish history or people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The partitions are very specific events and to going to the times before the partitions is not at all ridiculous. It's one thing that a city or town has a historical demographic presence and quite another if the demographic presence is that of just an occupier. (and the partitions were de facto an occupation). Imagine if somebody would suggest to put the Japanese names into the lead of the Chinese cities which were occupied by the Japan.  Dr. Loosmark  12:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is the reason why I don't think Nazi names should be in the lead.radek (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. That's why I think demographic presence is much more important in these cases, than historical allegiance. The problem however also seems to be the extent of certain article. If it's a well-established longer article, e.g. Bydgoszcz, it could benefit from a "Name" section. However, most of articles here are still tiny stubs. In such cases, it should be mentioned in the lead I think. - Darwinek (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, ok, but supposing that there is a "Names" section in an article, does the non-Polish name - already mentioned in that section - ALSO belong in the lead or not? Or is just a "See Names" link sufficient. Again, this has arisen in regard to naming elsewhere.radek (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I see your point. In such a case, I think using common sense and/or consensus should be used. "Names" section of some large city can contain dozen names in dozen languages, but the lead should probably reflect historically or "ethnically" the most important ones. - Darwinek (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying "Wilno" in lead of "Vilnius", right? Honestly, I don't think "common sense" is going to help us much here as some people appear to have a quite different interpretation of what is common or what makes sense. And the last, I dunno, five, six, years on Wikipedia have pretty much shown that you're not gonna get a clear consensus on many places - and even if you do, two or three dedicated editors are quite willing to stonewall any kind of implementation of the said consensus.radek (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm saying "Wilno" in lead of "Vilnius". :) For most users, it shouldn't be a problem but as you said, a few dedicated ones will always stonewall the rest. - Darwinek (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
So... you brave enough to go and try to add it, per the guideline given by Herkus (funny that it takes bravery to actually follow Wikipedia guidelines)? Or maybe Herkus could do it, since he brought the guideline up. Or, start the RfC on the naming?radek (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
My comment was related to the subject name. Discussion name is "German names for Polish villages" not "Nazi names for Polish villages". If different, please move the discussion to the name below. --WlaKom (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A minor comment: controversial names, if left in lead, could be followed by a note ... I don't have strong feelings here, as long as the names are reliably referenced, bolded and present somewhere in the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 11:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

More generally, let me restate that this issue needs to be dealt with comprehensively. Part of the problem is that there are guidelines but sometimes they are enforced, sometimes they are invoked, sometimes they are ignored, sometimes they are misrepresented etc. A lot of it DOES depend on whether you're talking about Polish-German issues or Polish-Lithuanian issues. And quite often the editors which take one position in a particular debate have no problem what so ever, completely flipping their reasoning and taking an opposite position in the next debate, when the shoe's on the other foot. That kind of a mess is basically an invitation for edit wars, disputes, accusations and battlegrounds. What is needed is an all around consistency, fairness and CLARITY in regard to policy. This is why you can't just try to address these flare ups locally (i.e. an article at a time). Also, since this is WP:Poland but it obviously involves broader issues, I suggest that a general RfC on naming for Polish-German-Lithuanian places be opened, rather than continuing the discussion here.radek (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I would suggest to open the separate discussion under the new heading "Original names of cities in Poland and former Polish territories" from misleading current one. --WlaKom (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that the discussion should be probably taken to a different venue so that editors other than members of this project can comment and participate.radek (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Source seems to be self-published

I checked the source given by HerkusMonte and it seems to be self-published. Its publisher specialises on printing books on demand [57] Per Wiki Reliable Sources [58] Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The source in question is a standard companion republished several times since the 1950s by various publishing houses and abundantly referred to by reliable sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please present reliable publications then, this one is self-published and thus doesn't fulfill the criteria needed for reliable sources on Wikipedia.Your personal views and opinions about this book can't be taken as proof without sources backing them up.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Rautenberg is not a bod publisher, I don't know how such an idea could arise. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Rautenberg link gives form for anybody interesting in publishing his book. If not publisher on demand than what kind of publisher is it? I am willing to change my mind If reliable sources are presented, or if it is a reliable publishing house(confirmed by sources)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:OR, please provide a reliable source, which claims Rautenberg is a bod publisher. However, that website is Rautenberg Druck (printing), you might charge them to print some advertising flyers, not books. Books are published by Rautenberg Verlag (publishers), specialized on Eastern European history, guidebooks etc. A respected publishing house, you will find some of their books in every German bookshop. HerkusMonte (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the correction. I understand that the author is credible as well reading from the text of another version of the book. Does she/he write why the location names were changed during Nazi rule in Germany? Personally I know in general that many were to be named in more "German" versions to hide their Polish and Slavic origins-is this the case here? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It's hardly possible to explain in one or two sentences why many Masurian placenames were changed in the 1920s/30s. In an abridged version, after WWI and the East Prussian plebiscite, the Masurians wanted to show their loyalty towards Germany and erase any "un-German" traditions. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: here's another source, a dissertation at the University of Osnabrück.
after WWI and the East Prussian plebiscite the Masurians wanted to show their loyalty towards Germany and erase any "un-German" traditionsSource? The plebiscite happened in 1920, the names you gave are from 1933 onwards from what I can see. Why would Masurs wait 13 years to rename their towns and villages? I was under the impression those name changes were made under the direction of the Nazi party? Is that incorrect?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The Nazis ordered a batch rename in 1938. While some renames were spelling adaptations and the like, and I guess that and occasional earlier changes is what HM refers to, others were fantasy names especially in the border regions, made without any historical sense and motivated only by Hitler's and Koch's attempted re-definition of "German". Skäpperöd (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Great, this is exactly the kind of information I was asking about. Do you have a (English lang - my personal curiosity is piqued) source which discusses this? Was Koch in charge of the renaming? This is definitely the kind of context that is needed if the "Nazi names" are to be included in article text.radek (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi names for Polish places

On the inclusion of these, I think an important issue which should be clarified first and which can shed some light on what to do about it, is the question I raised above: why were already German names changed by Nazi Germany (or even, according to Herkus above, Weimar Germany). What was the motivation behind this renaming, who or what body was responsible for carrying it out, etc. Generally, however, since these names were in use only shortly, and under what might be termed "extraordinary circumstances" (i.e. Nazi party in power in Germany) I don't think they belong in the lede, though they might very well be significant enough to discuss, along with the proper context, in the body of relevant articles.radek (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree: in my personal opinion changes made for purely political reasons don't really belong in the lede. However, we do mention all the names for Rastembork, Łęk, Żądzbork, Lec and Wartembork in the lede. That last one even mentions the other politically-driven name used for the town. So it very much seems that my personal opinion flies in the face of what has become accepted here. Varsovian (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, the obvious difference here is that the present names of the places do belong in the article title or lead.radek (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I entirely agree. My point is that neither Rastembork, Łęk, Żądzbork, Lec nor Wartembork are the present names and that Wartembork was politically-driven name change (as was Nowowiejsk) but it is still in the lede. Varsovian (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass renames

One other thing: yesterday, an IP and two users (probably the same person) have renamed a bunch of articles about events in Ukraine using modern Ukrainian names (e.g. "Battle of Lwów (1918)" to "Battle of Lviv (1918)"). I have reverted some of the more obvious (to me) moves (WW2 battles), but don't feel confident enough to revert the others (Polish wars). Perhaps someone knowledgeable in how these events are called in modern English can take a look? --Illythr (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Katyn redirects

Hello, I'd like to gather some comments and suggestions (especially from Piotrus as the original poster) for the redirect structure over there. Basically, if it's okay to move the contents of Katyn (disambiguation) to Katyn, make Katyn redirect to the massacre directly, or maybe create some novel solution for the Wikipedia:MALPLACED problem. --Illythr (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tentatively I have no objections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary redirects

Could somebody take a look at why those articles (Provisional Council of State, Regency Council, and Polish Border Strip), the first two of which are certainly notable, were recently redirected? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna undo these redirects as I see no justification for them offered and I can't think of one myself. I'll also raise this at the editor's talk page, since these kind of redirects essentially amount to deleting articles without a proper AfD process. I might also, if I find a bit of time expand them a bit.radek (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Good. In that case, here's a similar (if a bit older) situation: some articles from Template:Administrative division of Poland were turned into redirects. Administrative division of Duchy of Warsaw was merged to Duchy of Warsaw; Administrative division of Congress Poland was merged partially into Congress Poland and partially into Privislinsky Krai (which was then deleted and redirected to Vistula Land, with part of the merged content lost). I suggest fixing this mess by restoring both "administrative..." articles, and summarizing/moving parts of Duchy of Warsaw and Congress Poland articles back to them. Similarly, some articles on notable institutions were redirected: Namiestnik of the Kingdom of Poland (again, part was merged to deleted PK article), Administrative Council of Congress Poland (this one by Malik). Please note that each of those articles had a number of associated redirects that, if the merger is reverted, need to be retargeted as well. I think those article were notable stubs with potential for proper expansion. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional eyes needed

I have just reblocked User:Rivenburg, who was blocked back in 2007 for strongly biased editing of Michel Thomas. Ultimately, his block was reviewed, and was reduced to a ban on editing that specific article (talk page editing permitted). He has recently returned and edited the article using the Rivenburg account; however, a review of the article's history compared with available checkuser data strongly indicates that he has continued editing while logged out for much of the time of his topic ban.

This article needs review by people with some knowledge of the historical period involved, and I will cross-post this to the Polish and Military History wikiprojects; however, in the interim, it would be very helpful if a few folks would add this page to their watchlist and keep an eye out for further biased logged-out edits. Thanks. Risker (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest also posting to WikiProject France, and Biography. His connection with Poland seems rather small. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Princes and Aristocrats

Hi All,

I was reading the very nice article about Elżbieta Sieniawska. For some reason though, Sobieski's children there are called "princes". Perhaps it should be made clear in some place that the children of Polish kings (barring the Piast dynasty) were not allowed to use the title of "prince". "Królewicz" doesn't have an English equivalent. Either it should be always said that a Sobieski was a son of the king, or perhaps it'd be better to create an article about królewicz and królewna, and use the titles in reference to the kids. What do you think?

Another problem are the "aristocrats". Thankfully, a great number of Wiki articles use the word "magnate", but from time to time one can spot a "Polish aristocrat". Shouldn't it be somehow standardized to have clear rules about what Polish nobles can or cannot be called? After all the early abolishment of aristocracy was one of Poland's major achievements.

Of course, everything changed with the Partitions of Poland, when some nobles (though very few) indeed became aristocrats, but not "Polish aristocrats", only Russian, Prussian and Austrian, no? --SylwiaS | talk 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Using XIX and early XX century sources from German Empire in articles about Polish cities about their history?

A user has added among others works produced in German Empire to claim that statemants made by Polish authorities from XXI century are wrong: [59] The works in question are Theodor Eisenmänger, Geschichte der Stadt Schmiedeberg im Riesengebirge, Verlag May Woywod, Breslau, 1900, p.1 Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Band 23, page 261, Markgraf, Duncker & Humblot, 1886

I do not believe works from XIX and early XX century can speak about what was written in XXI century(obviously this is not possible). In any case should such works be used in articles about Polish cities as statements of fact? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is one of wikipedia's unwritten policies that whenever possible German sources have to be used for Polish cities. A practical example of this can be seen at Kołobrzeg "References" section.  Dr. Loosmark  12:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, although the edit diff shown is more of a talk page comment than a proper article editing, it doesn't really say anything about XXI statements, rather the two German references are used to attack the source of the XXI publication. --Soman (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jonas Damelis

The painter was born in Latvia, died in Minsk. pl:Jan Damel says he is a Polish painter, which I corrected to Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Is there any prove that he was ethnically Lithuanian? Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kinga Burza - Polish?

Swedish article says - Polish-Australian.Xx236 (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

proposed move at Dzierzon

There is a proposed move at the Johann Dzierzon article - to move it back to "Jan Dzierzon", here [60].

If you go and participate in the discussion and voting, please evaluate ALL the arguments and evidence, make up your own mind independently and consider the fact that both names are used in sources, hence both names are potentially legitimate.

Note also that other editors have been made aware of the vote through "Neutral notifications" [61] (of the two "Polish" editors notified one has been inactive since January and the other is an IP (assuming the IP is a Polish editor)).radek (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from insinuations. I notified pretty much every editor who I saw had engaged in debate as to the title (other than those who had already voted). Vote-staking is something which I have never engaged in. Can you make the same statement? Truthfully? Regarding your claim about notification of "the two "Polish" editors notified", Kotniski was active 23 July and was notified here. I assume that this was just yet another one of your unfortunate mistakes with the truth and not a deliberate attempt to lie about me. Varsovian (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not Polish, but I don't see that anyone did anything wrong over the notifications (those involved in the previous discussions were notified, regardless of nationality). Can this conversation please end here?--Kotniski (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I know that you aren't Polish but the statement was "the two "Polish" editors" and you are "Polish" (given that, like me, you can get a Polish passport any time you want). Varsovian (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

SS Jedność

I created an article on SS Jedność today. A Yahoo search for "Jedność" and "Polskie Linie Oceaniczne" turns up several potential sources. Are there any editors who are able to expand the article if any of those sources are useable? Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done. Needs a Poland WikiProject tags, and assessments as start mid or low. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 09:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
If this WP is interested in tagging Polish ship articles, they are in Category:Ships of Poland and subcats thereunder. Now, are any of those potential sources useable, and if so, would a Polish-reading editor please expand the article where possible. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I took a look and there is nothing usable in those sources I am afraid.  Dr. Loosmark  16:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review those (old) edits

I raised this before but got no comments, so here it comes again: some articles from Template:Administrative division of Poland were turned into redirects. Administrative division of Duchy of Warsaw was merged to Duchy of Warsaw; Administrative division of Congress Poland was merged partially into Congress Poland and partially into Privislinsky Krai (which was then deleted and redirected to Vistula Land, with part of the merged content lost). I suggest fixing this mess by restoring both "administrative..." articles, and summarizing/moving parts of Duchy of Warsaw and Congress Poland articles back to them. Similarly, some articles on notable institutions were redirected: Namiestnik of the Kingdom of Poland (again, part was merged to deleted PK article), Administrative Council (this one by Malik). Those articles have full-blown pl wiki articles, too: pl:Namiestnicy Królestwa Polskiego, pl:Rada Administracyjna. Please note that each of those articles had a number of associated redirects that, if the merger is reverted, need to be retargeted as well. I think those article were notable stubs with potential for proper expansion. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d e Some sources give 22 February. See Childhood for details.