Talk:Russian Enlightenment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent edits[edit]

Care to explain this edit ? I hope the reason for the deletion was not that it dared to mention Poland in a "Russian" article ? --Lysytalk 16:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to read edit summaries for the explanation. Also, an explanation was provided here in response to Piotrus' request for others to join a revert war that sadly worked, as I can see. --Irpen 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. And the answer to my question is ? --Lysytalk 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to what question? --Irpen 16:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss potentially contentious content removal first. --Lysytalk 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, your assumption of bad faith that I want to see a revert war is sad, if not unexpected. Catherine's views on Enlightenment are important to that article. The fact that she opposed parts of it, especially in political realm (French rev and Polish May Const.) are revelant here. The Russian National Library is relevant here, and so are its origins, as they involve both Catherine and the destruction of Polish Załuski's Library, a creation of Polish Enlightenment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, if you think that it's helpful to repeat the same details, which were already propagated by you in the specific articles about Russian National Library, Zaluskis, their library, Polish Enlightenment (and in dozen others perhaps), also in the most general articles about the period, I can't share your preoccupation. We can't inflate the article endlessly by adding all the details about Catherine's purchase of Voltaire's or Diderot's libraries, about the collections she acquired to form the Hermitage Museum, etc, etc, because these belong to specific articles about the library and the museum. Mentioning Zaluski's Library alone is adding undue weight to an episode, hence, POV. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing[edit]

The foremost mark of tendentious editing is assigning undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. Zaluski's Library may be of great importance for the Polish Enlightenment, so please discuss it in the relevant article. It has no place in the history of Russian or French Enlightenment, however. Unlike the personal libraries of Voltaire and Diderot which Catherine acquired for her collection, I don't think that Zaluski's collection is mentioned in a single non-Polish study of the subject. --Ghirla -трёп- 20:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it is good to have it and her view on Constitution of May 3, 1791 mentioned in the article if only to present how tendentious her understanding of Enlightenment was. I understand that any criticism of her or mentioning of her relationship to Poland can be irritating for Russian nationalists, but (unfortunately) the history of both nations was closely tied at that time and one has to live with it. --Lysytalk 20:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, stubborn Polish nationalists are also entitled to their opinions. I wish you understood that this article is neither about Catherine II, nor about her policies in general, much less about her policies and opinions in regard to Poland. "Enlightenment" is not another word for Poland, whatever some nationalist editors may preach. Another consideration is that the language chosen by Piotrus for his pet passage ("looted") is neither neutral nor encyclopedic. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree with you that any Poland-related issues are of minor importance the the article about Russian Enlightenment. Nonetheless since Wiki is not paper we have a room to mention those items, and I believe that both Catherine's views on Elightenment in other countries, and origins of Russian National Library are notable enough to be mentioned here - although again I agree with you that details belong in the subarticles, not here. This is why I think that half a paragraph we have now is enough - although I'd actually like to see the French aspect expanded a little bit. PS. Feel free to NPOV the wording of the article, but I think you meant plundering, not looting. I feel plunder is the right term here, what else would you suggest?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, of course WP is not paper and we have room, but you mistake "having room" and "giving undue proportion to a single event not in the scope of the article". If we had a full-blown article (A-level or so) it would be a different matter. If you look at Warsaw Uprising for instance, even such an important thing as the discussion of the reasons (or non-reasons) that Stalin had to halt his troops before Warsaw takes just a single para, while it is a much more important matter. I would say that it is all a matter of proportions. If an article is about X, things not directly linked to X must not represent an excessive volume (otherwise, well, the article is no longer about X)... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated stuff does not belong here and being "only" half a paragraph is not an excuse. This article has nothing to do with those events. Pasting the selectively picked stuff to the whole bunch of topics to emphasize the grudges Poland has against Russia is perhaps good to prop up the national patriotism. This is already done in Polish press and textbooks. The serious encyclopedia is, however, a different story. --Irpen 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my posts above for an explanation of the relevance. For Ghirla: Zaluski library is mentioned in may English lanugage works, for example, here and here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance, Piotrus? Origins of Russian library are relevant in the Russian library article. What are they doing here in the general article about Russian cultural movement?
Is the 1412 Polish plundering and looting of the Orthodox Cathedral of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist in Peremyshl by the order of Wladyslaw II (the thombs of Orthodox princes were ransacked and their relics thrown out to the street) who then trasnferred the cathedral to the Catholic bishop worth a mention in Renaissance in Poland article? I am about to write about those events in the upcoming expansion of Przemyśl article. Details will go to the cathedral article if it gets written at some point. I also thought of mentioning them in Polonization but by your logic, they belong to the Renaissance.
Don't you see that we've been through that? Brest parade and Molotov telegram added to a whole bunch of articles. Tyutchev, Russo-Polish War, Soviet partisans, Suvorov, lead (!) of Catherine II and even Ded Moroz getting Polonized. Now the Enlightment. Please understand, histories of the neighboring countries do not turn around Poland. Because Wiki is not paper we can have articles devoted to those events and they may be referred to in wider topic articles, but not the ones so loosely relevant. --Irpen 03:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, you are wrong here, history of Russia is very much connected with PLC and Poland. Acknowledging this is not "Polonization" of the article as you put it. As I've explained above, it is relevant to the topic of the article. I agree with Ghirla that the language used might not be appropriate but then go and change it into NPOV instead of deleting the whole paragraph. I've just changed it a bit myself. --Lysytalk 07:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Russia is also very much connected with that of Ukraine, Georgia, Finland, Sweden, Turkey, China, Germany and whatnot. Perhaps we should delete the "Russian" stuff in order to accommodate the claims of all our neighbours to our history? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, you know that Russia and Poland historically competed for influence in the territories between them for ages. Much of the history is shared between the two nations. --Lysytalk 08:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing of the sort. You may be confusing Russia with Lithuania or Ukraine. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. I should have expected that answer :-) --Lysytalk 10:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, Lysy. I will alert you as soon as I am done with writing the Peremyshl cathedral story and will rest assured that you will paste that stuff to the whole series of articles, starting from Jogaila, continuing to the History of Poland and, of course to the Polish Renaissance. I will try to be done with that sooner rather than later. --Irpen 07:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider this a WP:POINT attempt ? --Lysytalk 08:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not until we see that information pasted to irrelevant articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By who? I did not say I planned to add the looting of Peremyshl by Wladyslav II to Polish Renaissance. I will only include it to articles that seem to me appropriate and will leave it to you and Piotrus to spread it to more PL related articles, like Polish Renaissance for example.

WP:Point was Piotrus' copying of the stuff from Załuski Library first to Russian National Library and then here. No one said a word to his expansion of Załuski Library. The whole thing started when he proceeded with pasting that stuff to other articles.

So, I will elabroate on the Peremyshl story in the narrow article and in the meanwhile you will think of other PL article where it belongs. I already mentioned some possibilities above. --Irpen 08:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask how important were the looted collections of Załuski Library for Russian National Library at that time ? Were they marginal ? Did they make up a significant part of the library ? --Lysytalk 09:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, this is not the RU library article. You can rest assured that Piotrus added this stuff there as well. --Irpen 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding the answer or pretending not to understand our questions does not reflect well on you, I am afraid.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, you pasted that stuff to:

  1. Załuski Library
  2. Russian National Library
  3. Polish Enlightenment
  4. and now Russian Enlightenment

Did I miss anything? Lysy's question is irrelevant to this article. The role of the Zaluski library was important enough for the Russian library to be mentioned there. What is it doing in this article is the main question. One more time, I am taking it out. --Irpen 17:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this info should also be in Catherine the Great. It is important both to her article and that of R.E. to note that in creating one of the greated achievements of R.E., the magnificent Russian National Library, Catherine did not mind destroying it's equivelent in another country.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, this is en-wiki, an international project rather than pl-wiki or a Polish text book where the History of Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Germany, Berlarus and whatnot are presented as if they all rotate around Poland. Polish issue will not get an undue weight in Russian (or whatever other) articles ho matter how some try to achieve that. Your idea of having half of Catherine's article devoted to the Polish issue is revolting and follow the known trend of other articles. --Irpen 18:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC) ]] 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of having half of Catherine's article devoted to the Polish issue - (Personal Attack Removed by Irpen)? Where did I suggest we need half of the article devoted to Poland? Half a para here and one at Catherin's is enough for me, thank you - although I see that even a single sentence is too much for you, sometimes.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not dignify the PA question with any kind of response. -Irpen 21:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if it was Polish or not. What is important is whether it is relevant to the article. Therefore:
Now, that we agreed that the role of Zaluski library was important for the Russian library, the next question naturally is:
Was the Russian National Library important for Russian Enlightenment or not ?
--Lysytalk
And if so, is the origin or RNL important?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents: this information would be much better at Russian National Library than on this article. And as a general rule of thumb, I also think it is a bad idea to duplicate information, because unfortunately, it does not synchronize when you change it. Consequently, it would seem that it is best to place the info in the most relevant article - RNL in this case... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Grafikm. But what we need here is not duplicating all the details, just mentioning the important facts and elaborating on the in the appropriate articles. --Lysytalk 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I take it that the reference to Constitution of 3 May is not disputed any more, only the reference to origins of RNL, right? Second, as Irpen pointed out, that article already mentions the origins of the collection. The question is, is that origin relevant here? I think that it is, as it shows that Catherine did not hesistate to stomp upon parts of Enlightenment if she thought their destructions would further her goals; further as a minor benefit (which would not justify the inclusion of this link by itself) it allows us to link Polish Enlightenment, a nice relevant link to Enlightenment in a neighbouring country, as well as link RNL to its origins, the Załuski Library (thus we get two nice ilinks in this article).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, I see. So the logic is:

ZL important for RNL + RNL important for RE → ZL important for RE

Nice logic. --Irpen 21:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Basics of logic. No RE without RNL and no RNL without ZL, therefore no RE without ZL. --Lysytalk 19:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that the arguments for including a reference to the Zaluski Library are less than convincing. There is no direct linkage between the concepts of the Russian Englightenment and of the Zaluski Library, only a secondary connection at best. A reference in the article which directly connects to the Zaluski Library, the Russian National Library article, is I think sufficient. And the arguments about establishing additional links strikes me as being at best dubious and comes suspiciously close to linkspam. And to say that the "origins" of the RNL is the Zaluski Library seems to me to be overstating things in the extreme. Badbilltucker 18:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No direct linkage ? RNL was one of the bases of Russian Enlightenment. Catherine put a great effort in building it, including robbing the Zaluski library. Is it not notable enough to be mentioned in the article about Russian Enlightenment ? Why ? --Lysytalk 19:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for linkage: mentioning the origins of collection of RNL seems to me no different from mentioning that Smolny was designed by Quarenghi, or that Ivan Shuvalov was instrumental in founding of the Moscow University and the Imperial Academy of Arts. Also, note that although the ZL is the only part discussed here, some of our esteemed collegues are intent on removing info on Catherine's attitude to her reaction to Constitution of 3rd May, which is strongly tied to French Revolution and even more strongly demonstrates her selectivity when it comes to Enlightenment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question begging, Lysy. The stuff goes out. Enough is enough. --Irpen 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not convinced. Unless you prefer revert warring than discussing when you're out of arguments. --Lysytalk 19:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, I hate revert wars. Please tell me what to do when you refuse to listen and repeat the questions already answered and set the logical fallacy traps. --Irpen 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be patient with me and show me where my question about why it is not relevant to the article is answered ? It may be that I missed it. It seems relevant to me, which I've tried to explain above. Pure statement that it "is irrelevant" is not a satisfactory explanation of course. --Lysytalk 19:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, it is you who have failed to present any arguments why that information should be removed, other then complaining about polonization and that anything mentioning Poland is irrelevant to articles about Russia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow the arguments I "failed to present" were convinsing for the only uninvolved party who looked here. --Irpen 19:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but you are avoiding answering my question once more. --Lysytalk 20:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a cultura phenomenon, which is of little relationship to constitution or other things. Just as one won't put in every German's general articles "omg the nazism was evil", don't put in other articles "omg the poor Poles were mistreated by Germans/Russians/Jews/Jedis/E.T." (strike out the unneeded mentions). The example above is a caricature of course, but it seems to me that it illustrated pretty much the concept. This is not an article about Catherine II, nor about Russian monarchy, in which such an information might be relevant. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that it's not about "the poor Poles", "Catherine II" or "Russian monarchy", but it's about the Russian Enlightenment and RNL and the effort to build it was instrumental for it. Mentioning ZL shows how Polish Enlightenment was fundamental for later Russian Enlightenment. The relevance of this to the article is obvious. --Lysytalk 20:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I neglected to mention that I first posted in response to the RfC and so am doing so now. To Lysy - You seem to have not entirely understood the statement I made earlier, so allow me the opportunity to clarify my statement, thus possibly providing the clarification you asked for above. The Russian Library was one aspect of the Russian Enlightenment, but not the only aspect. As there is other material than just the library to be covered, then that material must be presented in a rational and coherent matter as well. The Polish library may well be significant to the Russian Library; I can clearly see how it is connected there, and have no objections or reservations about seeing reference to it included in that article. However, the Zaluski Library bears only a second-degree connection to the Russian Enlightenment per se, and, to prevent duplication of material within wikipedia articles, as is a guideline, it seems to me to make sense that the information on the Zaluski Library be included in the article on the Russian Library, but, to prevent duplication, that it not be included in the Russian Enlightenment article. Also, the argument about adding links, as I stated above, would work if we were talking about articles which were directly connected, not indirectly connected through another entity. And, despite your argument above, there is no functional difference between second-degree "important facts" and "details". First-degree connection facts are relevant, facts relating to a connection through another entity are details which can easily fit in the article of the entity which constitutes the connection. I hope that this statement clarifies the first response I gave to you. I agree the connection between the Zaluski Library and the Russian Englightenment is obvious, and worth mention, but not in a redundant fashion in both the Russian Library article and the Russian Englightenment article, unless there is the intention of removing one or the other article. Also, as a Request for Comment has been filed, I think you might wait until other more than one party comes in with a comment, as opposed to trying to contradict them individually almost immediately as soon as they are posted. To have someone who seems to be on your side in this discussion request comment, and then see one of the people on his side immediately try to tear the comment apart, does not act to encourage neutral, disinterested parties to involve themselves in this discussion, as  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  requested. Badbilltucker 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badbilltucker, I'm not trying to tear your arguments apart, I'm trying to understand why something that was at the base of Russian Enlightenment should not be explained in the article and why some editors, you included, claim this is of secondary importance. I understand that you are saying it is a "second-degree", of "secondary importance" etc. but I'm still missing the explanation *why* do you think so. Of course there was much more to RE than just the Polish influences (including, but not limited to ZL), but why do you insist they were not important, where the ZL alone shows that RE was built upon Polish Enlightenment. Are the roots of RE not important for understanding it ?--Lysytalk 08:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badbilltucker, we welcome all voices, be it agreeing or disagreeing with us, but I think nobody has 'immunity' from comments: if one takes part in the ongoing discussion, one should be prepared to receive replies. That said, and building on Lysy's post above, I would like to hear two things: 1) editors explaining why origins of RNL are not important while we mention the origins of many other things (Smolny, Moscow U., etc.) and 2) why information about Catherine's attitude to Constitution of 3rd May, which she viewed as influenced by French Revolution and thus a danger to her position to be dealt with - and which she acted to destroy - is removed, while information about her views (less important certainly than her actions) of French Revolution is left alone.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Piotrus, I can't explain the actions of someone else. I agree that it is odd to see someone's opinion about something unrelated to them included, while omitting any reference to something she was actively involved with. I can easily see how it would be easy to say that Catherine opposed the French Revolution, as well as local developments in Russia which she perceived as arising because of the success of the Russian Revolution. That is consistent and directly related to the subject in this case.
Also, to Lyly, I have nothing against expanding this article in a major way. However, as the page is currently constructed, the details about the Enlightenment itself are not particularly well-developed. To add further details of the origins of something whose actual lifespan is treated as briefly as it is would be to lay too much emphasis on the origins. And, again, there is the guideline about the duplication of content. It is not a hard rule, but that doesn't mean that it is not important. And what purpose would it serve for even a partisan to indicate the origins of something without at the same time indicating that the movement which it started is not itself important? Right now, the RE is itself not treated in any depth; there is no reason to treat the origins of something without at the same time equally sufficiently addressing the later development of the subject. The article is primarily about the Russian Enlightenment itself. IF the article were expanded enough in an equitable fashion so that it would have to be broken into different pages, clearly a detailed reference in the origin page would be called for. That is not yet the case here, however. The first priority of a page about the Russian Enlightenment should be the discussion of the Enlightenment itself, not just its origins. So, right now, expanding further details about the origins, without also adding details about the subject itself, is counterproductive, would probably be overemphasizing one aspect of the RE's history over another, and generally a bad idea. If there were further equitable expansion of the subject across the entirety of the subject, however, then further details everywhere would be welcome. Badbilltucker 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technical note: in your reply to me, I'd assume you meant Poland not Russia and French not Russian? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badbilltucker, I fully agree with your comment on the balance. But if you look at the history of the article I'm not trying to expand the origin details further. I only oppose removing them. I understand your comment would be better directed towards those who remove the sourced information from the article instead of developing it in its other parts so that it would reach the desired balance that you are talking about. What do you think ? --Lysytalk 04:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

I think we could have a new section Museums and Libraries there we would tell about creation of Kunstkamera, Hermitage and Russian National Library. The last will mention accuiring collections of Voltaire and Diderot as well as confiscating Załuski Library. The last one will only have a phrase (or half a phrase) no details - all interesting readers could click on the link and read it. I am sorry, Piotrus and Lysy but the scope of article is half a century with huge development, we need to be short and cannot afford to duplicate information. Ghirla, I rember I promise to write about visual arts and will do, will try to write the Mubraries section as well. abakharev 05:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully for rephrasing the sentence mentioning ZL, as I agree that the current wording is not quite appropriate. --Lysytalk 06:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that there is no need for details of ZL here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed[edit]

I'm disappointed that Ghirlandajo, Irpen and Grafikm_fr prefer revert warring than trying to reach an acceptable solution in the discussion. Neither of them cared to participate in the effort in talk page for last three days, yet in the same time they are actively removing information from the article. --Lysytalk 07:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, what's the point in repeating things to you? The uninvolved user:Badbilltucker said basically the same thing others were trying to explain to you all along. Finally, Alex proposed and expansion that would include half-a-sentence wit the RNL/ZL connection (this has nothing to do with constitution, still). You then revert war and for what? For the old version which is supported by no one but Piotrus and yourself. And then you dare say that you are "disappointed". --Irpen 07:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support or oppose the proposal of Alex ? How do we know that if you simply ignore it and prefer to revert instead (which you said you hated so much). --Lysytalk 07:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at Alex's proposal: "The last will mention accuiring collections of Voltaire and Diderot as well as confiscating Załuski Library. The last one will only have a phrase (or half a phrase) no details". Meaning no additions of stuff about Catherine II hating the Polish constitution, belonging to Jacobins or other stuff completely out of place. And a phrase, btw, does not mean a paragraph.
So yes, I support it, yet you don't apparently. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 08:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, answering to Lysy, I would not oppose the mere mention of the ZL in connection with RNL. I said so earlier but that's not the point as this Piotrus made sure it is in RNL article by now. PL Constitution, Catherine's attitude to it and to Poles in general has as much place in this article, as, say, Radio Maryja in Roman Catholic Church article or Roman Giertych in Educational psychology. --Irpen 08:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, finally we start discussing the constitution issues (it has not been discussed so far, right ?). I understand that we all came to agreement regarding the ZL that it can be *shortly* mentioned with its connection to RNL. What about the PL constitution ? Why is it not relevant, while we discuss Catherine's opinions of French Revolution at the same time. This has been already asked above but never answered, and I understand that both Piotrus and Badbilltucker agreed that her opinions and actions regarding PL Constitution were relevant in this context. --Lysytalk 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced possibly POVed term 'plunder' with neutral verb 'take'. What other improvements of this para would be suggested, other than complee removal of refs to Poland?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, removal of irrelevant or tendentious refs to Poland as stated above. --Irpen 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you only bothered by refs to Poland, or would you like to remove all other non-Russian refs as well ? Russian Enlightenment did not develop in a vacuum. --Lysytalk 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I see you have mastered the art of avoiding answering questions. Let me ask for the 3rd time now: How is Catherine's declared attitude towards French Revolution more notable than her proven attitude towards Polish Constitution ? And don't tell me you have already explained this "above". --Lysytalk 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we ignore the users who insist on removing information, and instead expand this article. There is much to be added on French influence on Russian Enlightenment, plus other issues mentioned by some more constructive editors above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are not more or less notable, but they deserve the same weight and length in the text, which is why I trimed some of Piotrus stuff to keep things balanced. I also removed the stuff related to ZL, because http://www.welcometo.home.pl is not a sufficient reference. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, I hope this is an acceptable refs, it even mentiosn Russian Enlightenment and can be used to refs a few other facts in this article. Btw, why did you remove refs to Novikov and Radishchev? I think that their tragic fate deserves to be described in the para about Catherine's changing attitudes. Perhaps we should also elaborate on the Counter-Enlightenment? And as I wrote above, I think we should expand on French influences, the refs which I provided should contain sufficient material for a good new para on that. I am sure that if this article is expanded, than the few refs to Poland will not stick out so much and annoy some of our collegues.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they won't annoy, Piotrus. That's what I'm saying since all this story broke out: it is perfectly OK to elaborate on any subject as long as it does not stick out in the article as being given an undue weight (not only NPOV-wise but length-wise especially). Of course that Russian Enlightenment is closely interconnected with influences of other countries such as France, Poland and Germany (come to think of it, we don't even have a single sentence on it... that's an oversight). It is just a matter of weight. The only weight that can stick out is obviously the main subject of the article, meaning an article about Pasta talking mainly about Marco Polo and their supposed Chinese origin, not of pasta recipes and pasta in Italy is skewed :) Not biaised because there is no NPOV issues, but skewed.
As for Novikov and Radischev, they do stick out given the current length of the paragraph, which is quite short so far. And talking about tragic fate is a bit exxagerated: he wasn't executed or sent to Siberia. Sure, prison ain't nice, but this was common practice in most European monarchies by then, so singling it out as something proper to Catherine, Russia or something else is kinda biaised. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read I don't think Polish E. had that much influence on R.E.; the ZL origins is interesting, if not vital, but the C3M is the only part that I think is really important. Nonetheless it is my view that we have many articles which have some, often minor, parts developed in detail when other important sections are sometimes non-existent. However the solution should not be deletion of the excessive information, but expantion of the other section. I haven't found any refs about Germany's influences in RE, although I do agree one would expect something along those lines. Italy was another E. powerhouse. As for Novikov and Radischev, certainly, I agree that it was not unique for governements to persecute their thinkers, Diderot is a prime example - but again, while I wouldn't put to much emphasis on those tragic events, I believe their fates deserve a mention; the more I read about R.E. the more I came to the conclusion that we are missing much about the counter-E. trend - although I'd agree that it need no more than a section here and should be fleshed out in its respective subarticle.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lack of reverts in the past 24h, can we assume that a consensus has been reached?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, your mere repetition of the old arguments does not make your case for Polonization of the Russian article any more convinsing. Neither outreverting or, the new development, insulting your opponents does. What consensus? --Irpen 17:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, it is you who fail to present any arguments; Lysy is still waiting for your answers above. Your accusations that I and others are trying to 'polonize Russian articles' is not very helpful, and if this is the best you can come up with, combined with deleting referenced info, I am afraid this issue is not going anwywhere. PS. I don't understand what you find insulting in this post, care to elaborate?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Let me guess, another important Polish fact should be included? M.K. 21:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does it suprise you? --Ghirla -трёп- 08:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the same scenario is repeated by them all around wikipedia. M.K. 08:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think all Poles are frustrated nationalists. --Lysytalk 08:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all but many. Some sort of inferiority complex, I daresay. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but curable. Poles often seem to need to show how worthy they are. --Lysytalk 08:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, too bad we're alone in that. If our fellow Russians were only half as nationalist as we are, they would most surely not delete the references they don't like. Or am I wrong? //Halibutt 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are, since the scope of the article is about Russian Enlightenment. Hence, other minor subjects cannot be given too much (undue) weight. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's hard to define 'minor'. I do appreciate your efforts into rewritting the disputed para, I think the current version contains all important information. If only some of our fellow editors would follow your footsteps instead of simply playing deletionists, Wiki would be a much better place.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ostap, please read the talk page above. The info is adequately explained in the Russian National Library. It is absolutely unneeded in such a general article like here per WP:UNDUE Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I undid my edit. Ostap 06:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23 April 2013 unexplained deletions[edit]

If there was indeed some [highly enlightened, aparently] thought behind this and that, I’d like to see it here explained. -- Evermore2 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_Enlightenment&oldid=1203002828"