Talk:Polonization/Archive 2

Polonization during partitions sourced to Dovnar-Zapolsky

Re: this edit. While interesting, most of the new information have no references, and the only one provided is a Soviet 1926. I'd be rather careful with it, as it is well-known (Marc Ferro and others) that Soviet historiography is very POVed. Especially if one is going to argue that Polonization was strenghtened under partitions of Poland (the time when Russification was raging, according to most other sources) - we should provide a better references (per WP:V and WP:RS) then a single Soviet'26 book.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's single but quite voluminous Soviet book :), and, anyway, it was printed but not actually published in 1926, as it was banned by the Soviet authorities for being "Bible of national democratism" and for not glorifying role of Soviets enough. The 1994 and 2005 editions are just reprints of the 1926 book. Don't know if that makes it good for you. Yury Tarasievich 22:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

JFYI, this author was one of the thorough researchers of the then-not-so-old 19th cent. events on these lands. Was witch-hunted in beg.1930s and was "lucky" to "just" die of heart-attack in 1934. Yury Tarasievich 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, one must remember that in mid-1920s Stalin's censorship did not take the grip and live and candid political debates were taking place even in the popular press. These were years of Korenization program that brought about the national cultural elites that were later purged (in 1930s). It was the time when the Ukrainian history books by Hrushevsky and Polonska-Vasylenko were published. This were the times when Mykola Khvylovy threw out openly a slogan "Away from Russia!" about the direction where the Ukrainian literature and culture in general were to be developed in his view. I am removing the "dubious" tag and advise Piotrus to study a little background of any source or author he is about to dismiss as "Soviet" or otherwsie unreliable. --Irpen 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that Soviet sources are just not reliable (per WP:RS) when dealing with history in such controversial topics. Please provide neutral (preferably modern acedemic English) publications to verify that info, or at least a favourable reviews of that Soviet source.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, by your logic, all Polish books should also be dismissed. When I have time I will write the article on the author of the book Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky. This will hopefully remove any doubts. If you can't wait, try searching for the info on him in the languages available to you. --Irpen 23:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet historiography (article which I will create when I have some time) is universally deemed as very unreliable - not that different from Nazi historiography or other totalitarian-decreed versions of history. It's as simple as that, and there is plenty of references for that. You should really read Marc Ferro, The Use and Abuse of History: Or How the Past Is Taught to Children, Routledge, 2003, ISBN 978-0-415-28592-6 [1] (for example).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky is one of the most respected scholars of the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian history. Period! I will write a stub on him today just FYI. I will not comment on the rest and would advise you to try to write Polish historiography for a start. --Irpen 23:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of him. He is, indeed, notable and influencial on much or Soviet historiography. That, however, does not make him as reliable as his Western counterparts, who can be expected to be much more neutral and much less politically controlled when writing about phenomenas such as Polonization.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please cut the BS. Are you trying to just drive me mad so that I go off with the comments your behavior deserves and allow you to proceed with yoour favorite path of administrative complaints? First, there were many Soviet historians with the highest reputation. That he worked in the Soviet times does not make him not credible per se. Further, he also worked in the Russian Empire and (very notably) in the Ukrainian People's Republic. He was invited as a consultant during the border negotiations between the Ukrainian and Belarusian people's Republics (non-Soviet and even anti-Soviet ones). Nataliia Polonska-Vasylenko, who worked much of her life in the west, was his student and colleague who always spoke very highly of her teacher and wrote his biography. One of Dovnar's teachers was no one else but Volodymyr Antonovych in the History dept of Kiev University. One of the most respected figures among the colleagues, Dovnar had many problems with Soviet authorities and to his own luck, he did not live to become a victim of the purges that exterminated any free-thinking historians of the time. To call him "politically controlled" is outright offensive in the memory of this established scholar. He is as reliable as there could be. So, just cut it and go check articles referenced to the Polish historians. Seriously, this is on the border of trolling. I am removing the ridiculous tag and I suggest you first find a single respectable criticism of this historian. --Irpen 00:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First, please stop ad hominens - you have been warned that they are not the best ways to go about a dispute. Second, per WP:V: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. Please prove that this person is reliable if you want to include his theories in this article. Do so by providing reviews of his works by reliable, English, academic sources, or at the very list that he is cited reasonably often on that subject by realiable scholars. Based on reliable works - like Marc Ferro's I cited above - I claim that Soviet historiography is not reliable. You may hold Soviet historians in highest regard - but WP:V asks you back up your POV with something else than your beliefs.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not put things in my mouth. I do not hold all Soviet historians in highest regard. I said no more that some of them are reliable and D-Z iz not even Soviet. I cited a respectable scholar Polonska-Vasylenko who published a bio of him in the west and gives him much praise. If you want to attack D-Z credentials, find at least someone other than you who supports this bizarre POV and please cut the civility talk. --Irpen 01:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am looking forward to seeing you criticize a Soviet or Russian historian. You did not cite Polonska, you mentioned her existence, and you most certainly did not quote any work of her. This is citing: "moderate nationalists like Dovnar [...] readily sought accomodation with new [Soviet] regime" from John Leslie Howard Keep, Alter L. Litvin, Routledge, 2005, [2]. Or "Bushkovitch identifies Kostomarov and Dovnar-Zapol'skii as populist historians..." Alec Nove, Samuel H. Baron, Slavic Review, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Winter, 1981), pp. 691-696 [3]. PS. Irpen, we are still waiting for the bio of Platon Zhukovich, whose works you tried to use to push the 19th century Russian Imperial view of the Warsaw Uprising (1794) - at least until we showed you enough contradictory modern references. Will this situation repeat itself here?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing your second ref but I saw the first one. Were does it say that he is not reputable or not trustowrthy in it? --Irpen 02:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is more: "A number of studies published before and during World War I contributed immeasurably to our knowledge, such as those of Dovnar-Zapol'skii and Picheta..." [4] Commerce and Agriculture in Lithuania, 1400-1600 Karl von Loewe, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), pp. 23-37--Irpen

A historian that 'readily sought accommodation with Soviet regime' is not the most reliable, and I cannot understand why do you keep denying he was a Soviet historian...?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Polonization during partitions sourced to Dovnar-Zapolsky (section break)

"Sought accomodation" is an ambiguous statement that does not necessarily mean that he wrote his books to please the authorities. Moreover, that his books were banned in USSR proves the contrary. His standing is very similar indeed to that of Hrushevsky and Polonska-Vasylenko who are also very respected, including in the west, and who also "sought some accomodations" with the regime. That work of all of them was subsequently banned as the Soviet full cemsorship kicked in disproves your attempts of dismissing them as "Soviet historiography". --Irpen 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I looked into the biographies of Dovnar-Zapolsky he is idetified as the creator of the National Belarusian historyography [5]] and even as the man who proved that Belarusians are a separate nation different from Russians, Ukrainians and Poles [6]. His History of Belarus was forbidden by the Soviets and only printed in the independent Belarus in 1994. He himself was persecuted by Soviets as a Belarusian nationalist. I think dismissing his works as a Soviet puppet is absurd. On the other hand he might be considered as a National Romantic and because of this some of his writings maybe taken with a garain of salt. But this is a slippery slope if we dismiss historians for being National Romantics we may end up with dismissing not only Dovnar but quite a number of Ukrainians, Poles and Russians who certainly also qualify for the strong national emotions. Alex Bakharev 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for stopping by. D-Z is certainly notable, and I agree that there may well be parts of his research that are useful; certainly he would be somebody to quote in many parts of History of Belarus. However - per my comments below - I would not call him an authority on the issue of polonization: most of his claims seem illogical and are contradicted by modern research.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A new pearl by Piotrus: "According to the 20th century Russian (later Soviet) nationalist historian D-Z". Piotrus, how to you come up with all this? Ethnically, he was a Belarusian, although born at the time when the concept of the Belarusians being a separate nation was yet in doubt. He then studied in Saint Vladimir University in Kiev, where he stayed on as the researcher. He then moved to Moscow under the pressure of the authorities unhappy with the Ukrainian national awakening climate around the circle of his teacher, Volodymyr Antonovych. In Moscow he worked in the Archeological Society and became a Privatdozent of the Moscow University. Then in 1901 he returned to Kiev University at the member of the History Faculty. During the Civil War he worked all over Ukraine whenever he could find an employment and safety. His interest included an extensive writing on Decembrists and the Ukrainian history, a collaborative work on UA history with such such grand figures as Antonovych. Hrushevsky and Polonska-Vasylenko, who has likely also been his common law wife, and even consulting the independent Ukrainian and Belarusian People's Republics in their border negotiations in 1918. The LOC alone has 21 of his books.[7]

In 1925 he returned to Belarus to the Minsk University and at that time he created his most important work, the "History of Belarus". The Soviet censorship started to tighten then and his book was banned and he was forced to leave the national University again for Moscow. He soon faced an incredible authorities organized baiting campaign and died of heart attack that saved him from an arrest. Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian historiography all consider him "theirs". "Russian nationalist", "Soviet" and early 20th century (he worked in 19th and until 1930s) is plain nonsense. Your perpetual dismissiveness towards the authors of the sources that do not support your POV is plain ridiculous. --Irpen 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. He was a citizen of the Russian Empire first and Soviet Union later, yes or no? And while some of his books might have been censored in SU, others were published there and he held a respectable position in Soviet academia, yes or no? And nationalist is both sourced by me and also noted by Alex. I am sorry that the facts are not to your liking, but they are facts - when it quacks like a duck, it is a duck, Irpen, and this is a Russian and Soviet historian.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Taras Shevchenko was also a citizen of the Empire. Is he a Russian poet?

Some of the books by Hrushevsky, Polonska-Vasylenko and other Ukrainian historians were also published in the USSR. Does it mean that these authors are to be dismissed? Are Polish historian who were published a single time in Communist controlled Poland to be dismissed outright? How about the authors who published in the interwar nationalist Poland? Also dismissed outright? Each scholar has to be judged by his/her own merit. I have yet to see a single ref from you about unreliability of D-Z' work. I added a ref to the western source to the contrary. Happy edits, --Irpen 04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have presented sources to show his bias, which you remove. I have presented modern sources that contradict him that you ignore. You add WP:WEASEL statements like 'highly respected' (I don't see anything about 'high respect' in your ref. And you seem to be ignoring WP:3RR. This is not constructive, Irpen. PS. And yes, all of the above sources should be taken with a big grain of salt, and how big it varies from case to case. As I shown with my sources, modern research indicates that in the case of polonization, D-Z research should be taken with quite a large barrel of salt indeed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You presented the citation which in weaselized terms speak about his political views. I replaced it with something much more relevant, an assessment of his work. This is not a revert but an edit and you know that. That Wagner is often viewed a nationalist does not change the fact that he was one of the greatest composers. The evidence that D-Z was a nationalist is very week and is restricted to a single source. The amount of works that cite him is immence that testifies to his credibility in any case. --Irpen 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing one's edit is reverting. The assessment doesn't use the weasel term you used to replace my referenced claims from Oxford University for him being a Russian/Soviet citizen and a nationalist (and my ref, unlike yours, is easily verifiable online). Have some others: [8], [9], [10]... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only see the first one from those above. I wanted to add it but noticed that is a book (Alexander the First, a Reappraisal) published by Xlibris, the self-publishing services provider.

Whose nationalist is he that you want to add? Russian? Belarusian? Ukrainian? (Antonovych / Hrushevsky / Polonska circle was often called Ukrainian nationalist as well). He can't be a "Soviet nationalist". Or can he? Or all three?

I agree about the "grain of salt" and "case by case". My point is that in this case, the historian's credentials are respectable. I did not touch anything you added about other sources that present an alternative view. All I did is replaced the general political statement about him, which is also loosely relevant, by a direct assessment of his work. If you dislike "highly regarded" what do you propose instead for the historian directly praised and frequently cited? Would "respected" be OK with you? --Irpen 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to integrate your source back, btw. --Irpen 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my recent edit. I hope we can reach a compromize on this - also, we may just want to move most of the criticism (positive and negative) of him and his work to article about him once it is created - then the reader can just follow the links and judge the author himself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

As a side note

...being Russian or Soviet historian does not bear a stigma by itself. I won't discuss this stigmatising worldview now, though.

To the point: if you disagree with something, bring explanations of the supposed flaws of the exact product -- and the mere fact of somebody disagreeing (not proving it false, I mean) with it doesn't invalidate it, btw.

So somebody called D-Z a nationalist -- big deal! And he cooperated with Soviet regime, held some positions (early years, anyway) -- good grief! It's only the material for the biographical article -- "perception of the person of D-Z" -- and doesn't invalidate his work by itself. Yury Tarasievich 08:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how old are you and if you've had the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms under the Communist regime since you claim that "being a Soviet historian does not bear a stigma by itself". Anyway the fact that Downar-Zapolski was not published by the Soviets can only add to his credibility, not the other way round. --Lysy^talk 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Yuri, please read Ferro's book or related positions (I linked Ferro's book above, I believe) for a crtitique of Soviet historiography. Being a Soviet historian does bear a stigma (and yes, being a Polish communist historian bears a similar one, as does being a Nazi historian and so on).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Subscribing to anti-Sovietism doesn't produce a good researcher per se, and same goes for the ideology-based critique. To cut the ...story short -- nationality does not enter into the discussion of author's merits, or else every author gets dissected so. Yury Tarasievich 14:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it does, and for good reason - see historiography and nationalism, read WP:NPOV and WP:RS, as well as books such as Ferro's. And yes, every author gets dissected so. It's just that people rarely quote Soviet historians or similar dubious references, so we don't have to do it every single time...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting to see how Piotrus uses the same method that he condemns in other articles. In Soviet partisans the AK was passingly called "nationalist". This was not my invention, I simply saw it in the source that I was reading on the subject (Subtelny) and I did not make a big deal out of it. When Balcer asked, I agreed to withdraw it in the end of the day. Nevertheless, I've heard a lot about "cherry picking", "googling" for rare quote to be used to POV push and even going into irrelevant speculations about the non-main subject of the article (AK) whose main topic is Soviet partisans. Now, look at what Piotrus, who was the most voiceful critic of even referenced using of the term "Nationalist" with AK, is doing here. He finds somewhere a quote (or two perhaps) where D-Z is called "nationalist" and revert wars to keep it in the article. Double standards anyone?

What's more, Piotrus insists on calling a Belarusian person, a "Russian historian" (and a Soviet too) and what we lack, is clarity whose nationalist was he? Russian? No way as he had problems with the authorities both before and after revolution. Belarusian, I guess? Or, perhaps, Ukrainian? We've heard no answer. And of course, with D-Z's separate article available, that stuff still has to be here just to undermine his writings that Piotrus happens not to like. That would all be understandable if not the righteous condemnation of (sourced) calling AK nationalist elsewhere. And we are talking "good faith" to others all the time, aren't we? --Irpen 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the facts. The discussion of D-Z nationality and nationalism was moved once his article was created, as I suggested earlier we should do. There are many sources about AK, very few of them use 'nationalist'. There are few sources about D-Z, several mention his bias and nationalism. Anyway, this is OT here, especially as the attempt to push D-Z outdated research (or some editors interpretation of them) is now in the past (while the partition section still needs further expansion, D-Z views are clearly shown as minority and contradicted by more modern research).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not again, Piotrus. Nothing in the modern research contradicts D-Z. What you refer to are refs on policy reversal after the revolts. D-Z says the same thing. Sources in fact agree with D-Z that Polonization continued for the first decades after the partitions. And D-Z agrees with sources when he says that later Polonization was reversed. Please stop these endless empty speculations. --Irpen 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed statements

While above we can discuss the merits of including Soviet research from 1920s, I'd like to discuss here specific claims. Please note that some of D-Z claims may remain, if better referenced - but I argue that some are pretty outrageous (and present referenced modern refs that contradict him). Disputed statements:

1. Primary concern: please explain to me how Polonization could have intensified under Russian partition - compared to the PLC?? I'd guess it's a fault of a translation, because claiming that the Polonization actually intensified under the rule of Alexander I as the direct control over the education in the "joined provinces" had been given to the local power people when those 'local people' (i.e. Poles, I assume (who else would 'polonize') had total control of their country before the partitions, just doesn't make sense. Next, the part that is as strange as the first one: The new structure had been headed by prince Adam Czartoryski, helped by such notable personalities as Tadeusz Czacki, rev. Hugo Kołłątaj, Jan Śniadecki. Effectively, this setup had enabled the cultural Polonisation and cultivating of the strictly Polish patriotism in in the territory in scale never before possible. The whole spirit of the schooling and the University had become distinctly Polish. and Such activities had seen some, rather weak and short-lived, opposition, e.g., by the first head of the University rev. Hieronim Strojnowski, and by the Uniate metropolitan Józef Lisowski. However, soon the headship of the University had been transferred to the notable Polish national activist Jan Śniadecki, and so any opposition to the Polonization in the University had ceased. as well as Summarily, the 1800s – 1810s had seen the unprecedented prosperity of the Polish culture and language in the former Great Duchy of Lithuania lands, had prepared the era of such famous "Belarusians by birth – Poles by choice", as Adam Mickiewicz and Władysław Syrokomla. The era had seen the effective completion of the Polonization of the smallest nobility, with further reduction of the areal of use of the contemporary Belarusian language. The Vilna Academy was distinctly Polish before the partitions, how could it become 'more Polish' afterwards?? Here are some quotes from history of Vilnius University by Tomas Venclova, a modern and reliable Lithuanian scholar (source): "[After the partitions] Russian was added to the curriculum. [...] The right of overseeing the whole of Lithuania's educational system was revoked, and academic freedom and autonomy were limited. [...]" And of course: "On May 1, 1832, by special decree, Czar Nicholas I closed the University of Vilnius." Now, granted, Venclova also mentions that "The University became the center of Polish patriotism and culture" and "The University Polonized Lithuanian nobility and townspeople", but quite obviously it did so only as much as Russian authorities permitted it (in PLC it was not controlled), and for a limited number of time. Summarizing, to claim that Polonization "increased" during partitions and that time saw "the unprecedented prosperity of the Polish culture and language" is rather absurd (but quite fitting to Soviet propaganda...). Here is a reference for depolonization of those areas under Russian rule in 19th century [11] and here for the interruption of the process of Polonization [12] (note that both of them are modern Western academic refs, and thus outweight the old Soviet claims)
2. The next sentence is irrelevant to this article completly (it may belong to Vilnius University, but a good part of it is contradicted by Venclova anyway: This had marked the beginning of the brief period of the intensive development of the schooling in the Belarusian lands. The Academy of Vilna, after its reorganizing into Emperor’s Vilna University (1803), had become, by the contemporary laws, the main and rules-setting educational institution of the whole Vilna educational district, which included the lands of Belarus and Lithuania (completely), three Ukrainian Gubernias (Governorates) (Podolia, Kiev, Volhynia), Belostok district (since 1807)
3. In the words of rev. Dmochowski: "...under the Russian rule the finest perspectives [for the advancing of the Polish national cause through the education] are opening, it’s just the question of choosing right people..." - nice quote, but irrelevant (who was Dmochowski? Unless he is properly attributed we can as well quote any random person, really)
4. The Polonization trend had been complemented with the (covert) anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox trends. Relevant claim, but controversial, so please, can we have something else then a Soviet book from 1920s to back it up?
5. In the following decades, the Polonization trend had been confronted more staunchly by then "anti-Polish" Russification policy, with temporary successes on both sides, like Polonization rises in mid-1850s and in 1880s and Russification strengthenings in 1830s and in 1860s. - this is also relevant, but better references would be preferable.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed statements, explanation

...I'll make it a separate section to be better readable.

Generally, it's preposterous to treat the whole of the 19th cent. as something uniform.

1. The quoted text refers specifically to the 1800s-1810s, Alexander I rule era. Developing of the country, initiated by the Russian authorities, was given under local control of the local Polish and Polonised nobility. No contradiction, then.

Venclova refers to the p.5 of your (my) list, "Russification strengthening in the 1830s". Of course, I could expand this, there is much more to it than just closing the University (in D-Z book, too), but 1st, haven't translated it yet, and 2nd, the detailed description of it would be much more proper to be in the Russification article.

On two other refs you give. 1st: only frontpage of metapress opens for me there. 2nd: this is very generalised statement, and as such bears no contradiction with detailed view of D-Z.

I have corrected the text to make it clear it describes the early 19th century, it was confusing before. Even so, please explain to me how polonization could be stronger under Russian (even liberal) rule than it was under Polish one?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My explanation (my understanding, really) is in the paragraph starting with "1. ". Virtually exclusive control over the local distribution of bigger than before flow of the resources, which was all but unchecked until 1830s, produced more effective Polonisation. Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but I fail to grasp your explanation. Again: how could polonization intensify under foreign government? Poles already had total control of the university and 'distribution of local resources' before the partitions, which could have only reduced their control.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Or you could emulate the lack of understanding, which goes for the rest of your replies, too. Was there a 9-mln. people comprising educational district before? Was there an influx of resources? That's how the effectiveness of Polonisation can actually increase, esp. if foreign authorities do not really imagine what to do in this department

Please sign your replies. As amusing as the claim that education in Poland improved after partitions, when Poland lost control over its education system - it is just that - amusing. Komisja Edukacji Narodowej was closed in 1794 and from there for the next 123 Poles increasingly lost control of schools and such. Even if the period of 1795-1810s was relativly liberal, the Poles control over the educational institutions decreased (with introduction of obligatory lessons of Russian, and so on), not increased. Here, have a reference that has less then a century ;p : Cambridge University Press: Partition of Poland [...] posed a genuine threat to the continuation of Polish language-culture. [...] It was in Russian-occupied Poland that Polish fared worst. [...] Education was probably the most sensitive area. The use of Polish language in education was restirected by Prussia and Russia. All over partitioned Poland education was at low ebb, with small number of ill-equipped schools. Those are just a few excerpts from one source. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Actually, Venclova confirms my entry: "...It was assigned three responsibilities: educational research, teaching, and supervising the schools in Vilnius' district. This district was made up of eight administrative provinces, including not only Lithuania, but White Russia and a large part of the Ukraine. These areas had about 9 million inhabitants..."

I am not sure which of my arguments you refer to, as I don't see much connection between my argument 2 and yours. Either way, details of Vilnius University operation belong in Vilnius University, not here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Details of operation do not belong here, while fact of shaping the schooling policy on a large territory, supervised by specific interest group, does. Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Which details do you believe are relevant here?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"...fact of shaping the schooling policy on a large territory, supervised by specific interest group..." Yury Tarasievich 20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not part of the quote - that's just your overinterpretation of an unreliable source.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Quote is from D-Z, and I understand rev. Dmochowski was of some notability then.

Quoting quotes is not best style, and Dmochowski is notable enough to even allow us to easily determine his first name now. We don't quote many much more notable people and researchers in this article - and on average we don't quote anybody on Wikipedia - try Wikiquote if you want to preserve his quote for posterity...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This quote has a quintessence of what we are discussing here, though. Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me disagree. We don't quote people in encyclopedia unless they are very relevant to the article. This is why we may quote Dmowski, a known proponent of polonization, and one of the most notable Polish interwar polticians. However Dmochowski is not notable enough to be quoted in this aricle - we cannot even find out his first name! This quote may be applicable to article on Dmochowski, section on his attitude towards polonization, if such article is ever written. Until such time, there is no need to include it in the article - we could just as well include quotes by scores of pro and anti-polonizers, and turn it into one big 'quotewar'. Thank you, I'll pass on that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Still, quotes aren't essentially forbidden. D-Z deemed this quote important. After the eventual confirmation of Dmochowski identity, it consider it eligible for including here. Yury Tarasievich 20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

However we are discussing whether D-Z is important for that article, and cosidering whether even a mention of his obsolete research is eligble for inclusion here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

4. This is a direct translation, and what's wrong with it, anyway? What other trends would the Polonisation be complemented with, if not with anti-Chief-Enemy trends?

Amusing how many people claim to be anti-chief-enemies-or-similar of Polonization. Russians have to compete hard with Germans, and Lithuanians, and others, you know :) Don't forget Jews... and Protestantism... and so on. As I wrote, I would like to see more neutral sources about anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox attitudes then one wrote by a person who was Russian and (I assume...) Orthodox. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

On these lands Polonisation had to compete chiefly with Russification and Orthodoxisation. What error do you see here? Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Venclova who makes argument about Lithuanization? After all, it was the 19th century which saw the (re)birth of Lithuanian culture and related processes. And let's not forget that we should clearly state time period and location - unless you'd like to claim that polonization intensifed in Prussia and Austro-Hungary, too :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No contradiction here. Venclova meant ethnic Lithuanian lands, DZ meant ethnical Belarusian lands. Yury Tarasievich 20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how both of them write about Wilno. Is Wilno an ethnic Lithuanian land or Belarusian? And please show me where D-Z notes this distinction.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

5. I would also love to quote more, but didn't want to spend all day on writing. :) And see explanation on p.1, too.

Nice refs, btw, thanks. Yury Tarasievich 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus and everybody, was Dovnar proved lying about anything I quoted from his book? By anybody? For if not, I'm going to restore some of quite relevant text massaged out of article, and to remove these word-hedges of style: "Dovnar, who is somewhat suspicious, says...". Yury Tarasievich 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, we have quite a few sources (and I can provide many more) that during partitions, polonization slowed or was reversed. Thus we have Dovnar, who sais 'A', and scores of other scholars, who say 'not A'. They don't have to say 'Dovnar was wrong', it's enough to show that majority of sources disagree with him. In other words, insisting on keeping his views prominent is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. The article should properly state that polonization was weakened during partitions, expand on this, and note that there is one historian from Russia, early 20th century, who disagreed with this, if you insist.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Piotrus restored that he was "Russian historian". How come? What does he mean? That he published works in Russian history? Well, he also published in the History of Ukraine and History of Belarus basically founding the scholarship of the latter. That he was ethnic Russian? False again. He was a Belarusian. That he was "Citizen" of Russian Empire? So he was of the Ukrainian People's Republic and the USSR. BTW, Taras Shevchenko was also a "citizen of Empire". Does it make him a "Russian author". That he worked in Russia? He also worked in Belarus and his best work was done, actually, in Ukraine in Kiev University. What does his having been called a "nationalist" in one book have to do with his credibility? Is there a single ref calling him unscholarly, a Soviet puppet or whatever? --Irpen 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Disputed statements, explanation (section break)

Irpen, it's really amusing watchning you trying to deny his nationality. Perhaps I should claim that he was a Pole and see how you react ;p Seriously - what was his nationality? I'd like a clear answer to that (alas, seeing as you avoid answering my clear questions above, I don't have high expectations). Helpful question: what language did he use, in what language did he write his book, whose historiography recognizes him as its patron (hint for the last one: Belarusian). It is evident that he was not Polish, and whether Belarussian/Russian/Ukrainian and 'nationalist Soviet', he was not pro-Polish. It is important to note his bias in the article. And as much as it may pain you, we have a valid reference for him being an old-school nationalist - so if you don't like it, try to find modern neutral historians agreeing with him on polonizations, instead of trying to argue that his research on polonization is neutral and as valid as modern one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. Anybody and his brother's remarks about D-Z aren't all that relevant, really.

Let's have some scientific refutations of D-Z work. If no appear, the initial text stands true, with obvious cuts mentioned in p.2 of this section.

Meanwhile, I've made an initial bunch on Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy. Lots of info I didn't notice beforee. Let's observe our collegues doing their thing now. Yury Tarasievich 20:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes, yes. Please don't make me repeat myself. Read our policies. That D-Z sais 'A' doesn't make it so if enough more modern reliable sources are showed to say 'not A' - unless you can show other modern research backing his claims.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You did't present refutations of D-Z work. Somebody labelling him en passant "moderate nationalist" isn't nearly enough. Somebody's OR of something "just not imaginably possible" is also not enough. That somebody seemingly contradicts his thesis, w/o explicit mentioning, is also not enough. Where are the books/articles which refute D-Z thesis on Polonisation flow in specific time periods of the 19th cent., please? Yury Tarasievich 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Per our policies, I don't need to present such works refuting his theories in particular if I present works refuting his claims in general. Despite claims of his prominence for Russian/Belarusian/Ukrainian historiography, he is mostly unknown in the West (as shown by the few citations and references to him). It is not suprising that nobody in the West would bother refuting or arguing with a Soviet historian (this is a fate of many Russian, or Polish, or Chinese or virtually any non-English historians, no jibe at the Soviets here). To give you an example, consider a notable Polish historian, Feliks Koneczny, contemporary of D-Z. Famous in Poland, he is mostly unknown in the West. Recently, the article was expanded a little, with criticism. Alas, the criticism section - despite certain user's best efforts to expand it - contains a 1) oblique reference in English academic book 2) a more detailed criticism from a Polish language work of a modern Polish scholar and 3) a popular press article of dubious NPOV. And that's the level of sources when we are dealing with relativly notable scholars - thin about the more mundane ones. If one would demand we find a work specifically refuting theirs, Wikipedia would be filled with 'reliable' claims of minor historians who nobody bothered to debate (especially the older they are). This is why WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS clerly allow to refute arguments based on the fact that they are not supported by other sources, and disputed by most others. Finally, note that it is you who have to prove this scholar is reliable when it comes to polonization, not the other way around (per WP:V: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided the extensive material from the book of notable author, who specialised in the 19th cent. history. I even provided the facts of his "suffering from Soviets" for writing this very same book. And now I'm being asked to prove he is "reliable when it comes to polonization"? What weirdness is this? How much more reliable can author get? Actually, are you reliable and competent when it comes to polonization, eh? Yury Tarasievich 07:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again: read the policies of Wikipedia. I will not repeat myself over and over again. If I dispute that D-Z is reliable on Polonization, the burden to prove me wrong rests on you. EOT.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• ??? Here in WP, you are nobody to "dispute reliability" of anybody. Also, you are not allowed to input your new presentation or interpretation of information. As far as I understand it's called WP:OR and explicitly forbidden. However, you are right that this talk gets us nowhere. Yury Tarasievich 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The authority of D-Z in the Belarusian history is well-established and challenged by no one. If a respected historian wrote something that Piotrus does not like, my condolences. Yuri does not have to prove anything extra just because Piotrus happens to not like the source. When Piotrus brings other scholars who say that D-Z's scholarship is unreliable, that would be a different story. The bottom line is that we have a work of a well-respedted author who is referred to to most every single comprehensive work on Belarusian history. Piotrus' editorializing on D-Z's research is inappropriate, at least in WP. If Piotrus writes and article tearing up D-Z's scholarship in pieces and the article passes a peer-reviewed process and gets published in, say, Slavic Review, [13] well then. We will all accept this criticism of D-Z. But not the criticism of Piotrus, as a Wikipedia user not backed up by any support among the scholars. --Irpen 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please, this is getting tiresome. What sort of burden are you trying to impose on the peer editor. That the author he is using is an expert in Polonization? That's nonsense. No one studied in the Department of Polonization of XYZ University. The author is a Historian, a highly respected scholar in the History of Belarus particularly specializing in the 19th century, the time and place that those events occurred. His work is praised by the later scholars who refer to him a lot. You can certainly find other historians of his time who is referred to now more frequently, true. But this is because unfortunately the History of Belarus is a rather obscure subject for the western historians. Not only more obscure than History of RU but even than History of UA. The scholar is of the Hrushevsky/Polonska respectability level. There happen to be more books on Ukraine because Belarus is a rather small nation and it is kind of exotic to write on its history. But even with this, we still find plenty of later scholarship referring to D-Z. He is a historian who is certainly usable. Please stop this campaign of slander against the authors whose only fault is that they show some facts contrary to the prevailing view of Polish historiography that portray Poland and the Poles perpetual victims of the barbarity of their eastern neighbors carried through "massacres", "cultural oppression", "occupations" and whatnots. --Irpen 19:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your tactic of repeating the same arguments, all over again, ignoring my pleas to observe Wikipedia policies, is what is really tiresome. Let me add one more: WP:AGF and WP:NPA to the list (and please don't break WP:3RR again). Btw, do endulge me and prove that we still find plenty of later scholarship referring to D-Z.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I did not break 3RR. I did not attack your personality and your repeated resorting to civility talk when you have nothing to say on the topic will not work. I do assume good faith in general. I do know you enough to not have to assume anything in our interactions. Now, go to Google books, enter "Dovnar" and find plenty of refs to him. More, find a single comprehensive work on Belarus that does not refer to him. --Irpen 20:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I did, and it is evident that majority of publications that refer to him and 1) not-English (Russian) and 2) old. In the first 20 I count only 5 English. The latest - from 1976 - doesn't quote him but only mentins him. Then we have the 60s, 50s... quote a few pre-WWII Russian... he would be very reliable for Wikipedia'50, but not for 21st century one, Irpen.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you find any 21st century English work on the Belarusian history? This is the problem. We have to use what we have. I wish a Harvard Slavist wrote a modern History of Belarus book. They did not. Ukrainians are more lucky to have at least 3-5 modern works in English on the History of UA. On Belarus we have to use what was published when it was published. --Irpen 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one book from 1997 worth examining (Belarus: At a Crossroads in History By Jan Zaprudnik). It cites D-Z once. There is also the Contemporary Belarus: Between Democracy and Dictatorship By Elena A. Korosteleva, Rosalind J. Marsh, Colin W. Lawson from 2002. It mentions he extensivly contributed to history of Belarus, but doesn't cite him. There are quite a few books that discuss Belarus as part of their theme, but alas, they fail to cite the great Belarusian scholar, D-Z (ex.[14] and so on). Particulary Davies in his well-referenced Europe: A History doesn't cite him at all. I wonder, if this is because they don't consider him reliable enough? Again, I would not object to see him referenced in history of Belarus, a subject he certainly contributed much too (although I am sure parts of his work, like the 'class struggle' analysis, are rather useless now). But he is not an authority for Polonization 'strenghtening and emanating from Vilna University', certainly.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article you linked yourself in its entirety? While at it, please read another one from the same source which describe in good detail the continued Polonization in early 19th century very much in agreement with D-Z. As we speak, I am working on including this material. I need a little more time. --Irpen 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See Piotrus, this is precisely a problem to answer your question because it is impossible to answer. What exactly do you mean by calling him a "Russian historian". That he was a "Russian" who worked in history? False. That he worked in "Russian history"? Well, by the same token he is also a Ukrainian historian and a Belarusian historian. He was certainly not a Pole. What he was was an ethnic Belarusian and a scholar of the Histories of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. This can be said in his article but I can't see a way to put it here in an non-obtrusive form. Now, you still did not answer whose nationalist is he. Belarusian nationalist you mean? Any refs for that? Any refs at all that dismiss him as a scholar? --Irpen 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

His claims on Polonization are cotnradicted by modern research. You have failed to provide modern refs to back up his claim that Polonization intensified under partitions. Per NPOV:UW he shouldn't even be quoted here. EOT, Irpen.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any lately published books on the history of Belarus. Are you? All that I've seen extensively use this author. --Irpen 20:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW. Franciszek Ksawery Dmochowski (1762—1808), Polish national activist, publicist, poet, translator of Antique literature. Participated in Polish Uprising 1794. Secretary of Hugo Kołłąntaj. Author of famous quote... From Polesie... Yury Tarasievich 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Source for this discovery? There are several notable Dmochowski's that lived in that period; Franciszek Ksawery Dmochowski was not a priest (rev. - at least according to your description above) - he was a Piarists, but quit the order before the final partition. There are two priests that may be the source of the quote: Walenty Dmochowski (1817 - 1881) and Kazimierz Roch Dmochowski (1780 - 1851), archibsop of Mohylew, also we have no guarentee the quote comes from either of them.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ponization of French

An unreferenced part was removed: please restory it IF references are found.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This process of Polonization was most prevalent during the times of Napoleonic wars when relatively large numbers of French soldiers resided in Polish lands (Duchy of Warsaw)

partition section continued

While I would prefer we use more modern, English, academic sources, the recent expantion seemed to be more neutral, better referenced and more relevant than the last more problematic attempt to quote D-Z century old research (btw, I'll create the article on Leon Wasilewski shortly - his works should have a rather strong Polish POV, which actually compensates nicely for D-Z (Belo?Russian POV but really, both should be ideally avoided). There are a few issues remaining. First, again, it would be prudent to try to find modern, English, academic sources to replace century old claims (or reprints of thereof). Second, I don't understand why a good part of modern refs were removed (Piotr S. Wandycz, Roland Sussex, Dolbilov - it is such modern researchers that we should rely more then perhaps respectable but now outdated Wasilewski or D-Z. Third, Irpen, please use proper cite.php and quote publiciations per WP:CITE: what's the full bibliographical data on '(Dovnar 1926)' (no page numbers)? Is it the same book that the later 'Dovnar-Zapolsky, pp.290-298.' where we have no idea what book is it but only page numbres? Please fix this. Fourth. The paragraph can use some copyedit (shifting stuff around for it to be more logical) - I will take care of this later. Fifth - while Russian partition is covered relativly well (early liberal times, later depolonization), the Prussian section needs to be expanded (and A-H one too) for this to be comprehensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "(Dovnar 1926)" is that same book and same pages, just I didn't want to re-stamp everything from scratch each time text got re-hashed.

I don't see what "century old" got to do with anything. It is accomplished research, and it either is or is not scientifically solid. It is an established historiogr. practice to chain-copy, and I don't understand from what other source would you expect "Modern English academic" works to come.

Anyway, I remind you book was banned and confiscated before publishing, and got re-published from manuscript only in 1994 (badly translated into Belarusian), 2005 being 2nd ed. (pub. w/o translation). Quite a reason for not appearing on the ref.lists?

Re Leon Wasilewski, I don't know whether your sources will note he was (one of) the first researchers attending the phenomenon of Eastern lands' Polonisation. Yury Tarasievich 15:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re F.K.Dmochowski -- info I out here was in biographical index in DZ's book. Yury Tarasievich 15:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So, pages numbers of DZ book are back. But the section generally is in no good shape now and needs further work. E.g., issues are oft repeated and hop-scotched back and forth (events of 1832, then 1794 etc.). Also, I don't understand why so much unrelated material (ideal for the Russification article, though) is here.

Some of quotes staunchly kept here seem of not-so-good quality, too. While, understandably, hitting google is easier, but the fact is the most of the serious research just doesn't make it to the electronic and freely accessible form.

E.g., 30 pages of monography on Polish national movement in Eastern Lands in 1864-1917 (Smalyanchuk 2001) are dedicated to the review of the historiography of the Polonisation phenomenon and the related terminology. On the other hand, the quote from the "The Slavic Languages By Roland Sussex, Paul Cubberley", p.92, comes from the book on virtually [sic] unrelated subject, is essentially two paragraphs long, regards all three partitions and spans the 120+ years. Isn't it bit thin for the serious representation of subject? Yury Tarasievich 08:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This all needs ordered carefully too for a good text flow. Also, the excessive material added by Piotrus should be deleted or moved to Russification where it belongs. I understand, that one cannot speak about the drought without mentioning water. But mentioning to give something a proper context is one thing. Adding stuff that belongs elsewhere to somehow "balance" things or satisfies one's grudges is unencyclopedic. It is totally appropriate to say that Polonization was reversed and Russification followed. It is not appropriate to write about Russification in the Polonization article just to dilute it or something. I did not have enough time to get to this today. But I will be back. --Irpen 08:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fully seconded. To re-iterate for the doubters: this is not directed to "hide" Russification or setbacks of Polonisations. Yury Tarasievich 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless removal of well referenced info of notable scholars looks just like that. Please don't remove referenced info. I am really disappointed to see modern research removed and hundred years old non-Englush, unreliable sources pushed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, please do not do that anymore. The irrelevant info does not belong to the articles no matter how well-referenced. This trick was invented by Molobo (in Tyutchev, Pushkin, Ded Moroz, etc.) and faithfully tried by you ever since in many articles from the Russian Enlightenment, to Russo-Japanese War. This data you add does not contradict the data of D-Z.

See, you just did not like something and attacked it without bothering for consistency. D-Z and several sources I added report on the continued Polonization in the first decades after the partition. Your sources speak about Russification after the policies changed following the Polish revolts against Russia. In fact, sources agree.

This article is about Polonization. We describe the times when such policies were in effect and mention that they were reversed. As for the details of what happened afterwards, take it to the relevant articles. Do not just paste it here to make a WP:POINT, dilute the content or whatever else that you want. --Irpen 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please don't try to censor Wikipedia. Thank you, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. The sources speak of depolonization - it is important to discuss this concept in this article. You make dislike mentions of Russifications or such, but it is a reality that those issues were very relevant to polonization in the 19th and 20th century and should be discussed here, as do many scholars in provided refs. Please don't remove information because it doesn't suit your POV.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, calling my attempt to keep this article on topic as "censorship" does not earn you any talking points. I neither like nor dislike the facts that Russification policies, after the Polonization was brought to an end, followed. There is a Russification article for that. What I object to is having the off-topic stuff pasted to disrupt the article. You want the article say that Polonization was reveresed. So do I. We just say it here, mention that it was replaced by the Russification and the reader is free to click and find the proper info with refs and everything where it belongs.

Please do not make another RE show out of it. ZL is in ZL and RNL. RNL is in ZL. Similarly here, Russification is mentioned but not expanded upon in the Polonization article. There is a Russification article just for that. --Irpen 20:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, you should move the referenced text I added there, not just delete (censor) it. However I still believe it's important to mention how those policies clashed and reversed polonization in more then one or too sentences, and this matter deserves at least one or more paragraphs. WP is not paper and there is room here to be comprehensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

See Piotrus, there is an difference between editing seriously and editing to POV push? It is not my habit to take a piece from one article and paste it to another disrupting the balance and text flow. This was also a trick Molobo favored a lot, further assisted by other editors in edit warring to keep it. I cannot just paste your piece to Russification as it takes time and effort to integrate the new info into the established text. Right now, I am editing another article. You are free to add the Russification info to the WP where it belongs. This stuff does not belong to Polonization article though, which is not about Russification. Suffice is to say that the policies were reversed and what policies followed. The rest does not belong here. --Irpen 21:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair's fair, since the 1830s, there really isn't a way to write about one of these two processes without mentioning the successes of another at all. But those should be really brief and specific refs, referring to the specific period fully expound in the main article. In fact the complementing nature of the processes should be mentioned explicitly in both articles, too. This way we won't have replicas of info creeping around and won't serve to tickle group beliefs etc. Yury Tarasievich 08:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added some refs and removed the stuff with details on other policies. The section ends with the mention that the Polonization was reversed and replaced by Russification. That statement is correct and referenced. Link to the Russification is provided. Below is removed material which may be added to other articles where it belongs. --Irpen 07:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The Polonization of the east territories occured in the situation were Poles had steadily diminishing influence on the government. Lithuanian scholar [[Tomas Venclova]] notes that while Academy of Vilno was the local center of Polish culture, it had less freedom than during the times of the Commonwealth, and was closed in 1832, following the [[November Uprising]], was subject to increasing [[Russification]] and not fully reestabilished until the end of the [[First World War]].<ref name=Venc/> [[Mikhail Dolbilov]], a modern Russian scholar from [[Voronezh State University]], notes that the late 19th century may be called a time of 'depolonization' rather than 'polonization'<ref name="MIKHAIL DOLBILOV"/> [[Piotr S. Wandycz]] from [[Yale University]] notes that the process of Polonization has been mostly interrupted by the partitions.<ref name="Wandycz"/>

Partition of Poland posed a genuine threat to the continuation of Polish language-culture.<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> It was in Russian-occupied Poland that Polish fared worst, as Russian administration was strongly [[anti-Polish]].<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> After a brief and relativly liberal early period in the early 19th century, where Poland was allowed to retain some autonomy as the [[Congress Poland]] [[puppet state]],<ref name="Harold Nicolson">[[Harold Nicolson]], ''The Congress of Vienna: A Study in Allied Unity: 1812-1822 '', Grove Press, 2001, ISBN 080213744X, [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN080213744X&id=qm5BNjqrGsUC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=Congress+Poland+puppet&sig=QeOuv98IrRQBMjDxV-SSShnqHlY Google Print, p.171]</ref> the situation steadily worsened. Education was most strongly affected, especially as [[Commission of National Education]] was dissolved in 1794. The use of Polish language in education was restirected and all over partitioned Poland education was at low ebb, with small number of ill-equipped schools.<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> Many universitites and places of education were closed after the [[November Uprising]] (1830-1831), as well as after the [[January Uprising]] (1863), the Polish language was banned from public places (schools, churches, etc.) in Russian Empire.<ref name=Venc/><ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> Many Polish intellectuals either died, were exiled to [[Siberia]] ([[Sybiraks]]) or forced to emmigrate ([[Great Emigration]]). Similar to the Russian partition, in Prussia, after a brief period of relative tolerance, polices of [[Kulturkampf]] of [[Otto Bismarck]] were directed towards the systematic depolonization in the realm of education.<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/> It was only the [[Austro-Hungarian]] partition that remained relativly liberal towards Polish culture throughout the 123 years between the fall of Commonwealth and the raise of the [[Second Polish Republic]].<ref name="Suss_Cubb"/>

---

I disagree. This is relevant information and should stay in the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, how about also adding a couple of paragraphs from Kielce pogrom to the the post-WW2 section and this data to the new section about the modern times created just for this? Makes exactly as much sense. --Irpen 19:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, like, some info on Polish-German "anti-Communist", but effectively, anti-Belarusian collaboration during WWII taking place on Belarusians lands? That's be quite on-topic, by the way, and I could source it on just one Polish (!) author, Jerzy Turonek. Oh, wait, don't tell -- he's not modern, not English and not in google? And he is Russian/Belarusian nationalist, as well? Yury Tarasievich 07:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Turonek a Russian nationalist? BTW - doesn't Turonek describe Belarusian anti-Polish collaboration during WWII?Xx236 14:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic and -- no, he doesn't. Yury Tarasievich 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Jerzy Turonek or claims of 'anti-Belarusian' collaboration between Poles and Germans. Feel free to elaborate. Keep in mind that whether Polish, Russian or Chinese, no ressearch under totalitarian regimes influencing academia is very reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you are not familiar with those, as you are obviously dismissing anything not fitting into your historical view. And you want a blanket license to kill any entry you don't like, too. Yury Tarasievich 14:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Turonek is quite independent, even from academy.

• Some AK units accepted German arms and Góra-Dolina has written in his memoirs, that his unit killed hundreds of Communists (how did he recognized them?).
• Wilhelm Kube allowed many forms of Belarusian activities.
• Belarusians were on many sides - in Nazi police, Communist units and even in AK. 118th Schutzmannschaft was probably partially Belarusian, see Khatyn massacre.

Xx236 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Turonek is quite independent, even from academy" -- is that sarcasm or is there some relevant critique? If later, than I'd like to get a lead to that.

"how did the recognise Communists" -- trivially, by being not Polish or obstructing Polish agenda on "Kresy". Anybody was eligible for that, Belarusian national activists included, primarily indeed. That's, e.g., per Turonek 1989, but I'd really appreciate the explanation of your remark. Yury Tarasievich 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yuri, the issue of the AK-Nazi collaboration in Belarus'-Lithuania is covered not only by Turonek. Several refs are brought up and now being actively discussed at talk:Soviet partisans. Piotrus have just tried to make it sound like a dubious speculation and almost unimportant too. You are welcome to check that talk page. But this is a side note, while no later than today, Piotrus also saturated the Red Army article with the details on how OUN rose against Poland and murdered the civilians (see talk:Red Army) I meant it as a joke here when I suggested to include the material on Kielce pogrom into this article. I don't think it belongs here. If only my opponent also understood that the Russification topic has an article on its own and the persisting with details (anything more than to mention that the Polonization was reversed and replaced) is highly WP:TE. I will try to remove this again now and will see whether I will be reverted and for what reason

Thanks and -- I really don't understand why Piotrus refuses to expand the Russification with this and make inter-article refs. Yury Tarasievich 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But as for adding anything to the article, here is the work by Volodymyr Antonovych titled: "The treatment of the Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church by the Polish state". And here is the more detailed study by the same author. This is relevant a big deal and the facts can and should be added to the article (not the opinions of the author of course, right Piotrus?) One of the most respected academics he would not lie with facts even if some value his opinions little. --Irpen 08:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What I see here is need for a better structuring, then. We can't just "lump" anything together, as if to impress an reader with image of "bad them and suffering us". Possibly, more outline info from the Smalyanchuk would be in order, too. Yury Tarasievich 10:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, Antonovych might have been respected a hundred years ago, but today please try to cite some modern research.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet authorities weren't beloved in Poland and in many other countries, Russia including:

• Katyn massacre
• Koniuchy massacre
• Soviet partisans#Controversies
• Lokot Republic.

Xx236 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

which led to large scale violence during World War II

So some Ukrainians murdered Poles because they had to learn Polish at school. My questions"

• why didn't Eastern Ukrainians murder proportionally many Russians as the result of Russification?
• had Poles right to murder Germans because of WWII Germanization? Can I put such statement into Expulsion articles?

Xx236 14:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

For the first, one, check Snyder works for refs and details (they come to mind). Simply put: they tried - but Stalin had a much more effective policy with dealing with dissenters (Holodomor, Gulags). So by the 1930s the Ukrainian nationalist movement in USSR was simply stamped out, unlike in Poland, where despite growing tensions and violence there was no 'reign of terror'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So there should be a statement like this and lack of Soviet type repressions led to large scale violence during World War II. My question was rather a critics of the quoted statement of type Bad white-Poles deserved to die from hands of Ukrainian workersXx236 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have such a blatant POV in the article. By all means, feel free to improve it - try to use sources, though. Here are the Snyder refs I mentioned: Timothy Snyder, Covert Polish missions across the Soviet Ukrainian border, 1928–1933 (pp. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, in Cofini, Silvia Salvatici (a cura di), Rubbettino, 2005). and Timothy Snyder, Sketches from a Secret War: A Polish Artist's Mission to Liberate Soviet Ukraine, Yale University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-300-10670-X, pp. 41, 42, 43, on which I base my above comments.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is POV "Given the short time span in which they were applied, these policies, applied with varying intensity, fell far short of their aim, but contributed to increased ethnic tensions which led to large scale violence during World War II." Xx236 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much POV in it, but feel free to rephrase it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-polonisation

Piotrus and Lysy, what actual problem do you have with this term and with its definition and attribution, which are taken from the specialised monograph? Personally, I do not either "love" or "hate" the term, it is just a term, a definition, and I'm just bringing it here because of importance of having clear terminology. By chance, you do not consider yourself instant experts on Polish historiography just because of belonging to the said culture, do you? Yury Tarasievich 10:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

First, note we are not removing this, but adding it to a footnote. There are several reasons for this. First, per WP:LEAD, lead should summarize content of the article, not discuss new concepts. Thus the discussion of 'polszczenie się' should be moved to its own section (or footnote). Second, this term is - as your ref nots - used only in Polish historiography, and a look at the publicatons seems to indicate it's rather obsolete (and like Lysy, I have never heard it before). Thirdly, it is not yet clear from your references if there is a content difference between 'polonizowac' and 'polszczyc sie', or is it just an example of usage of a reflexive verb (generally popular in Slavic languages) coupled with the 'polszczyc sie' being just an increasingly obsolete synonym. Considering that I couldn't find meaningful discussion of difference between those two terms, I am not convinced that 'polszczenie sie' is anything but an obsolete synonym worthy of little more than a footnote (or just mentioning in the lead as an altrnative increasingly archaic name for this phenomena in Polish language).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By this vein we'll be up to our ears in fantasies and methinks-es (widzimisie-s) in no time.

I'm not condescending but I have to remind you again that it's not for you (or for me of course!) to WP:OR. The specific use of the term influenced all subsequent Polish research and now your edits change meaning of the citation, adding your own interpretation of it. And what is the academic status of Google books, anyway? Yury Tarasievich 15:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. For starters, can you translate 'Смалянчук А. Ф. Паміж краёвасцю і нацыянальнай ідэяй. Польскі рух на беларускіх і літоўскіх землях. 1864—1917 г. / Пад рэд. С. Куль-Сяльверставай. — Гродна: ГрДУ,' into English and provide quotes relevant to 'polszczenie sie' from that source (both in original and English translation)? Also, please don't ignore relevant points like WP:LEAD style guidelines.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I will do it for you. The complete book ref is here: LCCN 2003-401164. The title's translation, to the best of my abilities, would be: "Between ideas of the statehood and the nation: Polish movement in Belarusian and Lithuanian lands." Published 2001 in Hrodna, Belarus. --Irpen 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Who published it (academic, self-published) and who is the author (academic)?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Monograph published by the printing house of Hrodna University. Author is doctor of historical sciences (I don't know the exact English counterpart, like Ph.D on top of Ph.D., and I understand, in Polish that's doktor habilitowany).

Monograph receipted well in Poland, as far as I understand.

That version of title translation is off, unfortunately, it would more like "Between land-loyalty idea and national idea...". "Krajowosc" is another indigenous concept originated in the 19th cent., and influencing blah blah. Yury Tarasievich 08:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The publication seems reliable, than - please update the reference with that information (year of publication, publishing house, English translation of the title, ISBN/ISSN where applicable, page numbers where applicable) and keep in mind to add those details in the future.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that moving it into a foot-note, instead of the deletion is a compromise, of sorts. Let's leave it there for now. But irrelevant stuff from the end of the partition section has to go. Piotrus is free to integrate it to the Russification, while we certainly link it here, and mention the fact of the policy reversal. Integrating this to Russification may take a little effort but seems certainly doable. I will try, in the meanwhile, to add the material from Antonovych to this article. --Irpen 08:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please keep Imperial Russian "historians" out of Wikipedia. While it was fun enough to prove that everything PZ wrote in relation to Warsaw Uprising (1794) was false, your assertions it wasn't did damage the articles by presenting his claims as truth for several weeks. Feel free to write article on Russian Imperial historiography and present their delightful fantasies there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, your attempt to smear Antonovych is ridiculous. Unlike Zhukovich, whose credentials I did not know and took the at face falue in good faith, you cannot just discredit Antonovych. More accomplished people than yourself are on record praising him. But once I add the info, I will look forward for you to prove fatcs wrong by other sources. If you come up with anything, we'll discuss it. Your undexplained return of irrelevant info is now reverted. There are no excuses to your deplorable habit of attempting to disrupt articles by adding to them the irrelevant stuff. No one adds paragraphs on Polonization to Russification article. Please desist, read what people tell you at talk pages and be more reasonable. --Irpen 03:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Footnote is fine, I just resent adding these off-the-wall editorials like "obsolete", "modern", "pre-war" etc. These guys somehow manage to stamp concepts and trends just by looking. And basing on the "Google books" is quite like saying "my library tells me...". Cf.wikt:en:dilettante. Yury Tarasievich 10:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of your 'my one book I have tells me...' right?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, got it in one. And that's not because of me being so smart, but because a) I'm not adding anything from myself in the process, b) I'm choosing as heavily specialised and high-level book as possible. That's what the annotations are for, e.g. in bibliographies. Yury Tarasievich 20:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: recent reverts. I don't quite understand why it is "either complete 3724 bytes or nothing". It hasn't -- oughtn't be so. Some remarks:

• The citation from Roland Sussex, Paul Cubberley, The Slavic Languages, p.92 is surely made to work heavily with 6 refs, proving quite a multitude of things. Nevertheless, in the context of this article on general history the historical background material from this book on philology would count next to useless. Same goes for the pieces of text referring to it -- emotional and un-precise.
• The pieces on Polish puppet statehood and Commission of National Education are completely irrelevant here (and in Russification, too btw). I guess these just re-iterate the respective paragraphs from History of Poland.
• Venclova seems to be liberally interpreted to the opposite of his meaning.
• The pieces with detailed descriptions of after-1830 and after-1863 repressions belong to the Russification article, with refs to the periods remaining here.
• This: "Mikhail Dolbilov, a modern Russian scholar from Voronezh State University, notes that the late 19th century may be called..." may be called laughable. Who is this "modern" Dolbilov guy in science? Why is his "may be called" so important, anyway? There'd heaps of such un-obliging "may be"-s, for each side of the debate.

What I would do, you'd seen already, with my first edit here. Part of it still remains in these 3724 bytes. Additionally, I'd expand this article -- and Russification too -- with the help of, e.g., Smalyanchuk book, decade by decade, like. Yury Tarasievich 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen, and I would not like to see it again. Using obsolete POVed Soviet/Russian Empire historiography is only good to prove that indeed, it tried it best to portray Polish culture in bad light and Russians as saviours of those disputed territories, nothing else.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First, kindly stop that name-calling ("obsolete", "POVed"), as this is white noise. Talk facts. For you aren't yet doing that, either w/r to that specific research, or w/r to the views of the specific historian.

Anyway, what has the "portray[ing] Polish culture in bad light and Russians as saviours" to do with the matter of Polonisation? There either were successes of Polonisation or there were not. "Russian empire" authors say there were paradoxical successes. Polish nationalist authors say there were paradoxical successes. But Piotrus knows better, of course.

It's understandable that Poles like Polonisation, and, e.g., Belarusians don't. Still, there remains the issue of having a sensible article in WP. You are not helping, Piotrus.

And what about other points of my entry? Yury Tarasievich 07:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny there were such paradoxical successes. They are very interesting and we should expand on them. However, your first expanded version presented (accidentaly, but that's what you get for near verbatim translation of an old source) the partition period as 'great time for polonization'. Some 'paradoxical successes' don't make 'great time', and I showed with my expanded and well referenced reply that indeed they were 'exceptions to the rule' (particulary after the first one or two decades). Modern research usually sees this and addresses those issues relativly neutrally. Old research, particulary from interested parties with significant bias, is what is not helping here. If you'd like me to show you sources describing Russification as ultimate evil and Polonization as Slavs only hope, I am sure I can dig relevant references from otherwise respected and notable 19th century historians... ;p-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only hope this constructive trend remains with us.

So: possibly there were some errors in translation, or in interpretation, or in both. DZ wasn't presenting entire partition period as "great time". Only the times of Alexander I (or pre-November) were described so. Later, what with the Polonism expanded and consolidated positions, it was tied struggle throughout the rest of the century (and Belarusians and Lithuanians just didn't figure).

Now, overall, the times of partitions had seen the "paradoxical successes" etc. There is no contradiction here that I can see. Can you?

I'd be quite grateful, if you'd stop this picking on the "19th centuriness" of the author. This characteristic is irrelevant in the context of the subject of this discussion. And anyway this is corroborated by Smalyanchuk, who uses lots of Polish sources, too.

On your offer of the sources on the Russification: thanks, but I have plenty of my own. The DZ himself comes to mind, and Smalyanchuk. Yury Tarasievich 07:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Polish-Lithuanian state didn't Polonize (rather Catholicized) until the very end, when Polonized Kościuszko wanted to Polonize Ruthenian peasants.
• Poland didn't exist till 1918, so there was no Polonization as a state policy.
• Many Poles called Polonized people Ruscy, when they arrived in 1945, so not always "Poles like Polonization".

Xx236 09:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.gazetawyborcza.pl/1,75248,3962717.html Xx236 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re this newspaper link: I don't feel that "free from ideology" is appropriate characteristic for those guys. Not that I approve people losing work because of the politics, but notice how they wanted eating the cookie and still having it -- "fighting the regime" while drawing the pay and scientifical honours from the same regime. Also, as far as I understand, Anishchanka's dissertation was bit on a lightweight side, scientifically. He wanted a doctorship for it, BTW, which would put him in the class of people like, e.g., Ulashchyk or Hrytskyevich or Mal'dzis.

Now, as Piotrus seemingly doesn't consider me worthy to answer my questions, I'll comment on those three points by Xx236, meanwhile. Summarily, sir, these betray somewhat insufficient and oversimplified knowledge of history on your side. Sorry. Polonisation isn't the description for the state policy, exactly, and the first successes of Polonisation as a process were noted in mid.15th cent.

What Poles called anybody isn't related to what Poles generally feel about the process which "gives" them more people and land. Didn't we all see how the cat was out of the sack, in Piotrus comment? Yury Tarasievich 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The word successes is POV, sir and your estimation of my knowledge is an ad personam argument. Xx236 12:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I insult you? I apologise.

You are of considerable knowledge of subject? Then why such superficial remarks, in the face of accumulated knowledge? To what end, that?

And what has POV to do with that, anyway? Both supposed "parties" in historiography call it so. What would be not-POV, then? Yury Tarasievich 12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

camp Tost

According to German Wikipedia camp Tost was controlled by NKVD, so it should be removed from this text, it wasn't any type of Polonization.Xx236 15:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Camp Tost? I guess we need an article (and references) on that...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Beauvois

Shouldn't his books be quoted here?Xx236 09:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First, create an article on Daniel Beauvois. Second, feel free to expand the article with references you have.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

About European powers

I am concerned about the lead paragraph "assimilationist policies implemented by other European powers that have aspired to regional dominance (e.g., Germanization, Rumanization, Russification) or to policies carried out by reconstituted countries which have wanted to increase the role of their own language in their societies (e.g., Ukrainization)." There is something wrong in there; you cannot say that Romania was a European power on pair with the Russian Empire or the German Empire ! In fact, no Romanian state was independent after the 16th century until 1877. So i would rather have Rumanization in the same category as Ukrainization. However there seems to be a huge bias in that categorizing. Poland itself was under foreign occupation for centuries, so Polonization would qualify under "reconstituted countries which have wanted to increase the role of their own language in their societies". In any case, I would like you to state your opinion about Rumanization. Icar 13:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the fact that Rumanization does not belong with the "Russification and Germanization" bunch. Dpotop 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved RO with UKR, but the variant I would propose is to drop the distinction between the two and put all examples of assimilationist policies together. This is better, because you don't have to enter into details and state, for instance, that the policies may have changed in time from one type to another, etc. Dpotop 13:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Minority?

In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the minorities (especially Ruthenian and Lithuanian) found themselves under strong cultural and religious pressure of Poland.

Can we consider Ruthenians a minority? I'm afraid (although not having precise data), that Ruthenians (meaning all both Orthodoxes and Catholics of the Eastern rite) were the majority at some periods in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What'll you say at that? If we put Poles to the second place, Lithuanians won't be very similar to minority in the proper sense of this word too, comparing with Poles. Surely, that Lithuanians (Catholics and post-baptization pagans) were the least numerous nation in the Commonwealth. But minority, as it goes without a special definition, means somthing different. So even this is doubted, but the Ruthenian case extremely. -- I consider this a mistake of time shift, when a later situation after a polonization period is taken as the initial situation. BTW, the statistical number of modern "ruthenians" (i. e. Ukrainians + Belaruses) exceed number of modern Poles in about 15-20 millions, - so even in this sense we can speak about Lithuanians only.

The sentence, that's cited above, needs a change or at least a very good reasoning. Linas Lituanus 12:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I changed it on February 28 2007 (with an explanation), only to be immediately reverted (without an explanation). And while the Lithuanians and Ruthenians were not minorities in these territories at the time in question, why would the facts and realities of the situation, be any different in this case than in any other in the minds of these contributors? Just another example of their POV pushing. Dr. Dan 13:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it could come from the fact that Lithuanians and Belarusians (possibly, the Ukrainians, too) were actual people who were culturally assimilated by Poles from middle class up? Yury Tarasievich 15:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's bring some referenced numbers into play. I'll try to get some better data soon, but for starters, in 1717 (source - this publication, see PLC article for specific map) Poles numbered 4,5m, Belarusians and Ukrainians (=Ruthenians, 2m), Lithuanians, 0,8m; the entire PLC had the population of 9m. The proportions of Ruthenians was probably higher a century before, before PLC territorial losses in aftermath of Deluge and Chmielnicki, and it is possible that for the 40 years between Truce of Deulino and Treaty of Andrusovo number of Ruthenian was similar to Poles or even slightly higher - but first, we need better references, and second, for the most of two and a half centurues of PLC history, Ruthenians were a minority.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The remark calling the two groups a minority was brought up in conjunction with 1569, the year of the Union of Lublin, not 1717, and to say that ...for the most of two and a half centuries of PLC history, Ruthenians were a minority, is not addressing Linas' objection or my edit changing the remark, since it only refers to one of the parties. Of course if you want to argue that the Lithuanians or Ruthenians who were Polonized were no longer Lithuanians or Ruthenians, then you would have a point. Perhaps that's where the disagreement lies. Dr. Dan 01:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, let's look at the data from the earlier ages. In 1618, AFTER Truce of Deulino, the breakdown was: 11,5 total, 4,5 Poles, 0,75 Lithuanians, 5 Ruthenians and Ruthenians, although not over 50% of total population, were the largest group indeed. But in 1600 population of PLC, before the significant territorial (and population) gains of Deulino was only 7m (ref). There is no reason to expect any changes in P or L population between those times, so we have a breakdown of 4,5 Poles, 0,75 Lithuanians, 0,7 Jews (according to the source) which leaves us with about 2m others - most of them Ruthenians. They are a clear minority (although the second largest group). Going further back - since 1569 Poland-Lithuania has mostly preserved status quo in the east (Livonian War, Peace of Jam Zapolski) so there is no reason to expect any signiciant population shifts. That said, I am looking for better references (I wouldn't be suprised to see the 7m estimate be +/- 1m in other sources), but historical demographics is a very poorly developed fields, particulary online.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, the question splits into two parts.

• The first part. What is a minority in the common sense? -- as we have usage witout any specifying here (we may specify it at least). Let's, for example, imagine a territory with ethnic composition 20%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%. Are these ethnic groups with 10% population minorities then? Or, a more real example, can we call 40% of the total population in Belgium, that speak French, a minority, against 59%, that speak Dutch? Linas Lituanus 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Go read Minority group. Particulary A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me cite from the Minority group (not just "minority" BTW):

To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms "subordinate group" and "dominant group" rather than "minority" and "majority".

That's exactly what I wanted, except alternative words itselves, which can be discussed here about. Linas Lituanus 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• The second part. Are the data, given by  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  reliable. Such a big difference between Poles and Ruthenians (2.25x!) seems to me unbelievable. I'm afraid, that Eastern Catholics are reckoned in as Poles here. Number of Lithuanians however may be real, if we took a proportion approx. 3.3 -- approx. 3.3 - approx. 0.8 (~1/4 - ~1/5 compared to the total of Poles or Ruthenians). At least, "historical demographics is a very poorly developed fields"!
  Linas Lituanus 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My numbers come from published books, they are much more reliable than your speculations, Linas, which so far don't seem to be backed by a single ref.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What numbers? Your link to Pogonowski's, "Poland a Historical Atlas," 1987, says nothing confirming your numbers. You could have simply said they are in the atlas, go find them. Your link above shows us nothing. And your citing World History, THE EASY WAY, hmm, I'd really like to add that to my library. Dr. Dan 20:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Dr. Dan. Go find them - I provided page numbers of the relevant publications - or if this is too difficult for you, stop distracting others if you cannot either follow a link or find some numbers of your own.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you are now using sources like, "World History, the Easy Way", may I suggest you pick up a copy of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Modern European History(ISBN 9781592574896), the next time you are in the States. It too is very concise, and probably a great wellspring of sources to quote, but I am not planning to add that one to my library either. Dr. Dan 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree numbers given by me to be speculation, so I don't base any statment on it. In contrary, I tried to find some reason in the numbers given by You. At least one of them and the sum of the last two can be reliable. But I doubt in the ration between number of Poles and number of Ruthenians. It seems just unbelievable to me as if one said that some president of the USA lived in the 13th century. What a reason of so different demographic changes comparing Poland to Ruthenia in the last three centuries was? So, I tried to explain my doubts later with Your own sentence, that "historical demographics is a very poorly developed fields". That's all, I wanted in the second part of the question. No an idea to put my numbers instead of yours. I prefer to skip the question of numbers with changing "minority" to something other. Linas Lituanus 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what substitute will we put for "minority" here? Linas Lituanus 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic group, population, all seem fine. Although I still think minority is more correct and informative, it is a minor point.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I see, that You like minority, as "more correct and informative", but I think, that the correctness is doubted, -- no one can be sure in it at least. If some ideas, considering demography of the Poland-Lithuania, exist, they should be written in #demography of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Here, they are written implicitly in a form of a single word. But these ideas, as I see, aren't so widely accepted to verify the word. What concerns informativity, the word can be misinformative easily. Nobody can be sure, whether the word here means a statistical minority or a minority as in the minority group.

If the quantitative approach to minority is supposed, we don't know real stastistics. Numbers, given by You don't seem to be reliable, not because I not wanted them to be, but because a proportion between Poles and Ruthenians is too far from the present statistical data. In fact we can't improve the numbers here (I didn't try to do that), so we should avoid the final decision.

If, in the contrary, the qualitative approach to minority is supposed, meaning "a subordinate group", we should verify the usage using some criteria, what minority is. And, --in many cases ethnic constituents of a state can't be called minorities, even if formally at least one of them is less in number. We can hardly call Valons a minority in Belgium, or Poles a minority in the EU. And it's impossible to refer nations of the EU as minorities of the EU, even when we think about all nations except the founders or similarly. -- Note, that a term "ethnic constituent" is used here. It can be a proposal here as an alternative. Linas Lituanus 16:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

While this is going off topic, I don't see what's wrong with calling Poles a minority in EU. And, for the last time, my numbers are reliable per WP:RS - sourced to reliable publiciations. You cannot call them unreliable because they don't fit what you thought would they be.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, formalism is good, when it isn't too tiresome. I just can repeat, that I don't want the numbers not to be as they're given. I've no any personal interest in it, at least. They just seem suspiciuos, because they don't pass a simple calculation test. We may use them in an article like Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where we can put all arguments pro and contra and refer to the source. But we shouldn't use them implicitly , with no references or any other necessary information.

Now, what minority mean in its common sense and how can it be used. I'm afraid we've come to a deadlock now in this question. I propose, as we both aren't native English speakers, to look for mediation. We should ask a mediator few questions, approximately following:

• Can the word minority be misundestood in the sentence disputed?
• Is it possible to use a word minority in the sense of an ethnic constituent (as I've shown in examples above)? Linas Lituanus 15:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in mediation on such a minor issue (pun not intended), but you are welcome to look for other editors to comment here. Let me just note that according to our numbers, for most time in PLC Ruthenians were the minority both in total numbers (<50%) and when compared to the largest minority (Poles).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The only person, that speaks English as native, is Dr. Dan in this discussion. But, as I see, You disagree with him. I however think the present revision is less controversial. It hurts nobody (I believe) so it can be left as it is. Linas Lituanus 15:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine or the whole Commonwealth?

I'm afraid to be boring, but the next sentence is wrong too. I thought to better it myself initially, but now I see, that it may consider the whole section essentially. So:

The first sentence now is: In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the non-Polish ethnic groups, especially the Ruthenians and Lithuanians, found themselves under the strong pressure of Polish culture.[3]

But the second is: The Polish rule of the territory started from the 1569 Union of Lublin, when many of the territories formerly controlled by largely Ruthenized[4][5] Grand Duchy of Lithuania were absorbed into Crown of the Polish Kingdom, and formally ended by the 1795 Third Partition of Poland, while in reality it continued well into the 19th century as the enserfed peasantry and huge estates were left in the Russian and Austrian Empires under the control of the Polish magnates, or the Polonized ones, virtually indistinguishable from the former.

At some extent the both sentences are contradictory. The first and the title speak about the whole Commonwealth. But the second says about "the territory" with later explaining: "when many of the territories formerly controlled by largely Ruthenized[4][5] Grand Duchy of Lithuania were absorbed into Crown of the Polish Kingdom". This sophisticated phrase means nothing other than later Ukraine. So, it may seem, that Polonization took place in Ukraine only, but not everywhere in the Commonwealth.

An other inaccuracy is to speak about "largely Ruthenized[4][5] Grand Duchy of Lithuania". Even citations [4][5] don't support the phrase, because they say nothing about demography. The G.D.L. was largely Ruthenian rather than Ruthenized, looking demographically. Amount of Ruthenization in the Proper Lithuania is disputed. Even today, Belarus has under its sovereignty not so big part of the former Proper Lithuania (i. e. of territories, that were pagan before the end of the 14th century, for example, Hrodna, a Ruthenian settlement initially, was on border between Ruthenians and Lithuanians). So the phrase needs a substitution too. Also, "territories formerly controlled by" can be understood as some specific territories, so it's better to say "former territories of". Linas Lituanus 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Polszczenie się" ?

I've not encountered this term other than in this article. Is it really notable ? Indeed, Polish language makes a distinction between "spolszczony" and "spolonizowany" but "polszczenie się" ? Maybe an archaism ? --Lysy^talk 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can understand the assumed difference with "polonizacja" being passive, and "polszczenie" being active for the subject. I just never heard anyone using the term in Polish language. --Lysy^talk 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes from EB

Is it appropriate to include extensive quotes from other encyclopedias, in the way this article does ? --Lysy^talk 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Minorities?

I deleted the first part of follwing sentence because Poles in Germany aren't comparable with Germans in Poland. Poles weren't forced to live in Germany but Germans in Poland were forced to leave in Poland - because there old German homeland was polonized.

“ Unlike the Poles in Germany, the Germans enjoy a formally recognized status of an ethnic minority in modern Poland. ”

Wikiferdi 02:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Countering the facts on Polonization in early-19th century by referring to Muravyov's time

Please note that Mikhail Nikolayevich Muravyov-Vilensky times were much later that the time described in the beginning of the section. Please do not try to "debunk" the info you happen to not like by telling that the opposite happened when that "opposite" refers to a much later time. --Irpen 19:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Using XIX century Panslavists and Slavophiles as source of Knowledge about Poles ?

Seems very very biased, since the movement and its thinkers were opposed to Polish national identity. I don't think the article is neutral if we use a century old claims from ideological fighters. --Molobo 06:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You won't find any references here to authors opposed to Polish national identity. --Irpen 10:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

References here are made by authors from movement that was fundamentally opposed to Poles and Poland. Also they come from XIX century and period of "national awakening" which casts doubts on their objectivity.

--Molobo 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest removing texts about Poland and Poles written by members of Pan-Slav and Slavophile movement. The movement is simply to emotionally opposed too Polish culture and history to be seen non-controversial or objective. Its claims should be moved to articles about relevant thinkers and movement. Likewise I would use Pangerman movement members writings about Slavs history for example. --Molobo 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

large and many quotes

I don't think such large and many quotes are needed for the article. Certainly it needs shortening and whole pasted pages aren't good. --Molobo 06:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought so too. But too much referenced info was removed too often by you know who. BTW, nothing is "pasted". I elaborately translated the text into English because without quotes, the info was removed, even when referenced to page numbers. Now, that it is supported by references and references can be read, they are more verifiable. --Irpen 10:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dovnar-Zapolsky

Those fantastic claims by Belarussian nationalist historian how Russian Empire helped Poles to turn Belarussian into Poles during Partitions supported by some serious modern historians ? --Molobo 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

First, please find sources that claim the unreliability of this historian. BTW, whose nationalist is he do you think and why you think so? Any source about the history of the Vilnius University confirms the info about its increased Polonization and Polonizing role in the early-19th century. But in what you are right, the section needs some ordering. For instance, sourced statement about early 19th century are attempted to be dismissed by countering them with sources that talk about the later time. Please give me a couple of days and I will correct it. --Irpen 10:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It falls on the one bringing the author to prove his reliability not on the one questioning it. --Molobo 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and reliability of Dovnar-Zapolsky is widely established in the scholarly field by, for example, multiple references to him in practically any work that deals with History of Belarus. He was an established academic who worked in three leading Universities. Once this is established and per WP:RS it is your burden to prove him wrong. --Irpen 19:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No it is your burden to prove his fantastic claims how Russian Empire helped Poles to change Lithuanians and Belarussians into Poles. As to his works and universitites they can be very well based on other subjects and ideas. Working on university means little. I for one can recall Russian uni scholar claiming ethnic cleansing of Poles by Soviet Union was done for their good. So it means little. Unless extreme fringe view that Russian Empire was Polish tool is supported by reliable modern historians that have little to do with Belarussian nationalism will be given I see no reason to treat that fantastic claim as anything other then fringe theory. --Molobo 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, the info is referenced to three scholars and two journal articles. At this point you have to prove this wrong. --Irpen 19:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before-please provide modern, non-nationalist and non-ideological scholars that prove those fantastic claims. --Molobo 19:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Article is sourced to reliable works and there is nothing to discuss here. Your not liking something is not enough to make sources info unusable. There is nothing to discuss here until you provide some info to the contrary. --Irpen 20:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Aricle is sourced by works by members of movement which choose Poles and Poland as idological enemy, the works often come from nationalistic period or Stalinist period and make claims not supported by known modern research.

The article can't be seen as neutral untill you provide neutral objective sources. --Molobo 20:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, there is not a single reference to a historian who worked in the Stalinist period. But most importantly, all facts referred to Dovnar-Zapolsky, Wasilewski and Smalyanchuk agree with each other as well as with facts in the two articles from the Lituanus journal, by Venclova and Yla. Until you start arguing facts, there cannot be any discussions of the issue. --Irpen

Let's not confuse to things. 19th century historians are often obsoleted by modern research, and their style of writing is not what today passes for neutral. On the other hand, many of their facts are correct. I suggest pasting each disputed statement here, reviewing it for neutrality and discuss whether modern research argues for some contrary view or not. If not, it can be kept (providing we all agree on a neutral language).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Facts are facts and need to be explicitly examined for their accuracy. We can talk about opinions later. --Irpen 23:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring again

Oh, and I see now that you are back to your old ways. Revert warring, unexplained tagging and talking denial at the disucssion page. Not surprising. One more time, you are joined by Piotrus, who reverts my edits wholesale, including the corrections unrelated to the dispute, instead of discussing at the talk page. --Irpen 20:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing neutrality disputed tags, when explanation is given on talk and discussion ongoing is not constructive. I failed to notice any corrections, other than removal of sourced information.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That can only be if you did not even bother to check the edits you were reverting. --Irpen 23:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Slavophile"

Again you resort to personal attacks rather then discussion. Most of the article is covered by a member of militant movement which despised Poles and Poland. It can't be seen as objective source. To quote: "The Slavophiles were quite virulent in their attacks on the Poles. According to Iurii F. Samarin, Poland was transformed into a "sharp wedge driven by Latinism" into the very heart of the Slavonic soul with the aim of "splitting it into fragments."(1) Nikolai Ia. Danilevsky, the late Slavophile, dubbed Poland the "Jesuitical gentry state of Poland" and that "Judas of Slavdom," which he compared to a hideous tarantula greedily devouring its eastern neighbor but unaware that its own body is being eaten by its western neighbors.(2) Fedor I. Tiutchev, one of the leading Russian poets, also called Poles "Judas of Slavdom."(3)" Reassessment of the Relationship: Polish History and the Polish Question in the Imperial Duma Journal article by Dmitry Shlapentokh; East European Quarterly, Vol. 33, 1999"

"For generations Poles had been a sort of embarrassment for Russian nationalism. Indeed the core of Russian nationalism since the middle of the nineteenth century was an idea of Slavophilism. This ideology (as many others) was inconsistent. On the one hand their representatives emphasized Orthodoxy as the essential characteristic of the Slav, credited for the Slavs' benign characteristics. On the other hand, the very term Slavophilism implied that the benign characteristics of the Slavs stemmed from their ethnicity which had nothing to do with Orthodoxy. This explanation also implied the political unity of the Slavs, or at least their mutual gravitation to each other, and here Poles were an endless embarrassment." Reassessment of the Relationship: Polish History and the Polish Question in the Imperial Duma Journal article by Dmitry Shlapentokh; East European Quarterly, Vol. 33, 1999"

"The Polish nation from this time forward was to Slavophiles the embodiment of the detested Western Europe and of the detested Catholicism." Impressions of Russia by Georg Morris Cohen Brandes, T. Y. Crowell & co 1889"

It shocking to use a writings from a Slavophile and Pan-Slavists about Poles as source of objective information. --Molobo 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in this text about the authors you happen to dislike. Find sources that prove the info wrong. Until then, I see nothing to discuss. And for crying out loud please format your entries yourself. --Irpen 20:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Its about their ideological allegiance. I only need to know ideology of Nazi movement to know that its members shouldn't be used as objective source of info on Polish or German history. Likewise here-the description of what beliefs and ideas were promoted by members of the movements casts more then doubts on their objective handling of Polish history.

--Molobo 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

None of the authors used in the articles have been known for their allegiance to the NAZI idelogy. There is no evidence that any of the authors promoted any anti-Polish views. For instance, Kostomarov was known for being open towards Polish culture and was even considered a Polonophile by the Slavophile schools. His being critical of the Polonization is shared by almost all historians of Ukraine and does not make him vulnerable to the ridiculous accusation of Polonophoobia. For his political views critical of autocracy he was sent to an exile and not allowed to teach. When he was in Vilnius on the eve of the insurrection, he still chose to spoke Polish, certainly not something that would make him popular or help him politically. He criticized restrictions of the construction of catholic churches and is known to have given the copy of De imitatione Christi by Thomas a Kempis to his fiancée on the eve of their wedding. True enough, his openness to the Catholic culture was not shared by many of his contemporaries and does not open him to your ridiculous character assassination.

Dovnar-Zapolsky, similarly had problems with the Moscow authorities and had to change the workplace three times. When working in the Kiev University, Dovnar was a member of the liberal circle centered around Volodymyr Antonovych and his disciples. If you care to read the talk page above, you will see that Dovnar is called no less than a founder of the modern Belarusian history. --Irpen 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"None of the authors used in the articles have been known for their allegiance to the NAZI idelogy"

Of course-this was an comparision.Some are connected to Slavophile ideology and Pan-slavism movement which as seen above ideologically was opposed to Poland and Poles, some are Belarussian nationalists from Stalinist era and etc.. Writings on Poland are obbjective if coming from such source. And you seem to confuse Poles with Catholicism-I am a proud Pole but atheist, many prominent Poles are protestant. Please don't use stereotypes from XIX century Russian historography portaying all Poles as Catholic. If anything if he used such stereotypes shows how very biased and not objective his writings were. As to rest-no influence on supposed views to Poland. Example Stauffenberg was murdered by Hitler but you can't use that as claim he liked Poles(in fact he was quite hostile). Likewise being attacked by Stalin at one time is nothing strange in politics of Soviet infighting and speaks nothing about their attitude).

We should use modern objective sources not sources from ideological movements that had opposition towards Poles and Poland as part of their core ideology. --Molobo 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not respond anymore to your mere repetitions of your arguments. The discussion above is available for anyone interested. --Irpen

The arguments have shown their value-we can't present arguments from ideologist of a movement that opposes some nationalities culture as objective source of information on that nations history and culture-what we can say what ideologists of such movement thought. Thus the information belongs in specific article.--Molobo 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with facts

And finally, regardless of your claims, we are speaking about facts here, not opinions of the historians, biased or not. Reported and referenced facts, in order to be removed or challenged have to be explicitly shown false rather than brushed aside using inane and disingenuous accusations about the source's character. All references agree on facts and yours' and Piotrus' attempts to attack this information without bringing up a single reference that shows otherwise amounts to an intellectual dishonesty.

Your endless ORish statements like "fantastic claims", "nationalist", etc. will not lead you anywhere. Show the source where the facts are shown wrong or countered by other facts and please do not use sources that present facts that took place years later. Professional historians argue facts, not attack each other's character.

Finally, attempting to disprove facts by invoking the sources that present a different story, while the sources actually speak about the wholy different time period is an outright falsification. A cheap trick. --Irpen 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, these are only facts about opinions of members of movement that opposed Poles and Poland. They certainly can't be seen as objective knowledge based on his movements emotional dislike and opposition to Polishness. Anybody can fabricate fantastic tales-its obvious that they can't be countered if they are invention of somebody rather then history. As I said-modern objective scholars are needed, not nationalists, pan-slavists, slavophiles and Stalinist era historians. --Molobo 22:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Same as above, your cluttering of this page by responding the same way to every objection does not warrant any further response. --Irpen 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you can't find a reason why statements from a member of movement that ideologically opposed Poles should be given as objective source on Poles I suppose my arguments have shown their worth.--Molobo 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I've been talking about. --Irpen 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good then, I shall review those statements and we shall remove the most controversial ones.--Molobo 23:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this being an example of your answering to objections by repeating your earlier claims. --Irpen 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC) If you have any further objections to stating how a source from ideological member of a movement that opposed Polish culture and Poles can't be used as objective source of information about Poles, please write.As far as I see nothing was presented of serious value, despite adding info about stereotyping Poles as catholics. --Molobo 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed statements

Ok, let's chill out a little here. I'll copy statements referenced to Dovnar below, let's discuss each individually and concentrate on: 1) whether it is disputed or not by some more modern historians 2) is the language neutral.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

1st

In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the non-Polish ethnic groups, especially the Ruthenians and Lithuanians, found themselves under the strong pressure of Polish culture.

Referenced to: "Due to his marriage [with Jadwiga, Jagiello] converted into the Catholicism and became an ardent proponent of the newly accepted religion and, gratifying the Poles, patronized both the spread of the Catholic religion through the Ruthenian lands and the implementation of the Polonization of Ruthenia. At this time, the embryo was put that for the following centuries defined the relationship between Ruthenia and Poland. The notion of religion became indistinguishable from the notion of the ethnicity. Who was the Catholic, was the Pole already. Who considered himself a Ruthenian, was an Orthodox and Belonging to the Orthodox Church was the defining sign of the belonging to the Ruthenian people." (in Russian) Nikolay Kostomarov, Russian History in Biographies of its main figures, section Knyaz Kostantin Konstantinovich Ostrozhsky (Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski)

Comment by Piotrus: the sentence in main text seems neutral. The quote seems reasonably neutral. The author is a 19th century historian, but unless his claim is contradicted by modern research, it seems ok to me to leave it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradicted by historical knowledge:

"The notion of religion became indistinguishable from the notion of the ethnicity. Who was the Catholic, was the Pole already." They were protestant Poles, in fact much of Poland was heavily protestant up to Deluge IIRC. To claim that after Jagiello Poles=Catholic is huge distortion of facts. In fact such distinction didn't really happen until XIX century. --Molobo 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We are talking only about the Ruthenian context here. The information is certainly correct and well supported. Any Ruthenian becoming a Catholic has been viewed as a Pole and vice versa. --Irpen 23:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What we are talking is irrelevant. It is mportant what the author writes. The claim if false-not all Poles were catholics. This seems to be a very outdated stereotype often found to my experience in Russian nationalist thinking. Anyway it needs to be removed-its just as somebody would claim all Jews are bankers and rich, and all Poles are catholic. --Molobo 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is pretty clear here. I rest my case. --Irpen 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Molobo 23:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

After successes of counterreformation in late 17th century, and certainly around the times of partitions, vast majority of Poles were Catholics. Unless the text refers to period pre-second half of 17th century, I don't see much wrong with the claim that Poles were primarily Catholic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  10:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2nd

As such, the entire population of Ruthenia was split into the privileged and non-privileged ones, and the latter were the Orthodox people of Ruthenia.

Referenced to: same as above. Seems to fit the general picture. I don't see at the first glance what can be objectionable here. Of course, a more modern source would be better.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

3rd

It soon became mostly like Polish language superimposed on the Ruthenian phonetics. The total confluence of Ruthenia and Poland was seen coming.

Referenced: as above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

4th

Dovnar-Zapolsky notes[ that the Polonization actually intensified under the liberal rule of Alexander I.

Referenced: Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky, Russian language source - title and other publication details should be translated into English. Alexander I was, IIRC, relatively liberal for Russia, but such qualifier begs discussion of how liberal was it compared to free Commonwealth, and how was his "liberalism" actually seen and enforced in the Commonwealth. Suggest dropping the "liberal" qualifier, but the general argument is confirmed by modern scholar Tomas Venclova [15].-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I will provide the translation. We are talking about the Russian Emperor and an epithet obviously implies in comparison with other Emperors. The text further explains his liberalism wrt to the issue at hand. Appointing the Polish nobles to oversee the education of the huge territory, organizing an effectively Polish university and giving it the highest status. All facts are there for everyone to read. --Irpen 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So it speaks nothing about Polonisation but about some Polish nobles being in administration ? It seems then that it should be removed. Poles were in administration of various states-it doesn't equal to Polonisation.--Molobo 23:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, please read the text before posting. He was not "appointing Poles". He was appointing Poles who conducted the staunchly Polonophile policies and did not interfere in their doing so. --Irpen 23:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of such natue in the text as far as I see-it only speaks about University and administration.--Molobo 00:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you are not reading the articles you are discussing then. Here is what it says: "Sniadecki, supported by Czartoryski, made the last ditch effort to Polonize the young generation of Lithuanians by educating them as Poles that would join the ranks of the struggle for the independent and homogeneous Poland.""ref". --Irpen 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Homogenous Poland ? That is dubiuous. Polish efforts were to restore Commonwealth. Only after January Uprising the effort was changed to one based on ethnic criteria rather then on Commonwealth citizenship.--Molobo 02:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet again. We have a sourced statement referred to the article by Tomas Venclova in Lituanus and the Wikipedia user who says, "this is wrong". Does not work that way. --Irpen 02:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Information can be disputed if controversial.--Molobo 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but not by a Wikipedia user who refuses to provide a single source to support his claims. --Irpen 04:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources will be provided don't worry.--Molobo 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

5th

Dovnar-Zapolsky notes that "the 1800s – 1810s had seen the unprecedented prosperity of the Polish culture and language in the former Great Duchy of Lithuania lands" and "this era has seen the effective completion of the Polonization of the smallest nobility, with further reduction of the areal of use of the contemporary Belarusian language.

Referenced: as above. The language seems not neutral: unprecedented prosperity - after the Commonwealth fall? Sounds rather dubious, we should either back this up with modern source or remove/rewrite. His second claim is more neutral and plausible, but again, modern research would be nice to confirm it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"Unprecedented" is meant to apply certainly for the particular territory. No one doubts that Polish culture prospered earlier in the territory of Poland. We compare the Polish cultural prosperity of the region not to the earlier situation in Krakow but in this very region only. As Polonization of the lower nobility proceeding at the higher rate than before is referenced, this was unprecedented indeed. --Irpen 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The cultural situation in Krakow is both easly sourced and easly explained. On the other claims that somehow Poles were using Russian Empire to pursue their policy of Polonisations is neither sourced by modern and objective sources or widely known fact. This remains a very fantastic claim or serious manipulation, anyway it should be sourced by modern objective sources.--Molobo 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Until you find a counterclaim, the claim is sourced. --Irpen 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Actually having a source isn't enough in Wikipedia(otherwise it would turn to rumour and gossip mill)-it has to be reliable. For example some claim Bush is a Reptilian, I haven't seen counterclaims-but nobody would write that as the source is unreliable. In cases of extreme views and information that contradicts modern knowledge and research Wikipedia:Reliable_sources policies are applied.--Molobo 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You so far did not even show any modern knowledge and research that contradicts the source. --Irpen 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen-if the source makes fantastic claims, then it is obvious they wont' be contradicted if they are invention of somebody or manipulation. Because the author is outdated Belarussian nationalist from Soviet era it makes him unreliable when talking about Poland-a modern neutral scholar would be welcomed.--Molobo 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of character assassination against the author. Not a single referenced argument. Sorry. And even your statements about the author are unreferenced. --Irpen 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here I removed Molobo's response. I asked him dozens of times to enter his statements such that they as well as other people's statements are readable. Molobo, please clean up after yourself. Once you enter your statement properly, I will respond to it. --Irpen 04:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen, but some authors are reliable some are not.That is why we have wikipedia reliable sources policy. The fact that you are forced to remove my comments seems to confirm you have no arguments.--Molobo 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

6th

In the 19th century, the mostly unchallenged Polonization trend of the previous centuries had been met staunchly by then "anti-Polish" Russification policy, with temporary successes on both sides, like Polonization rises in mid-1850s and in 1880s and Russification strengthenings in 1830s and in 1860s.

Refeenced: as above. Other then "modern source would be nice", I don't see what's controversial here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversial wording-it seems like Poles and Russians were equal forces :"Polonization rises in mid-1850s and in 1880s and Russification strengthenings in 1830s and in 1860s.". We could use another source presenting it objective way-after all Russification was the result of forced opression of the powerfull Russian Empire with all of its tools-it can't be described in a way suggesting equall position. Also the talks talks about Russification as purely reaction to Polonisation-which false-after all the attempt were also aimed at eradication Polish national identity in favour of Russian one among Poles themselfs. While it belongs in Russification article, the current wording is so biased that a reader could have wrong idea about Russification by Russian Empire meant. --Molobo 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick to facts. Were the waves of Polonization alternating by the waves of Russification? Sources confirm that. Than we should say so. --Irpen 23:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Context is important. Were German soldiers killed in Poland in 1939-yes. But we shall not write this without context will we.--Molobo 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What change are you actually proposing? --Irpen 01:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

7th

Quote: "The higher class in Poland was omnipotent and, of course,...[and to the end]"... Kostomarov "Knyaz Kostantin Konstantinovich Ostrozhsky"

1. ^ a b Kostomarov, "Ostrozhski"

Full text of the quote at Polonization#_note-Kost_Concl

• Full of false and authorative statements:

"The higher class in Poland was omnipotent"

• Conspiracy theories:

"no intrigues of the king and the Jesuits would have been able to subvert it"

• POV claims of nature that can't be judged
  • highly mainstream view about a commonly known fact that the King's power was limited and szlachta liberties were held sacrosanct. The author's emotional language is not repeated in the article. The quote is given merely for the context. --Irpen 10:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

They were numerous limitions on szlachta power and they were numerous cases of autonomy for certain groups like Jews or Tatars. Claiming Polish szlachta had omnipotent power is false and stereotypical. --Molobo 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC) "was not able to hold to its own from the moral oppression"

• • Truth is that Ruthenians indeed were unable to "hold" as Polonization advanced. Again, the author's emotional language is kept for the reference only. Article's text uses only objective statements. Also see a similar quote by Polonska-Vasylenko below. --Irpen 10:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If that would be true they would be Polonised which they weren't and several nobles among them existed. --Molobo 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Authorative claims about whole ethnic groups ammounting to racism and promoting ethnic feuds that are simply false:
• Stereotypical portayal of Poles as Poles=Catholic, although Poland was very diverse in religion:
  • What time are you talking about and what part of Poland? --Irpen 10:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"In Poland, the Ruthenian religion and the Ruthenian ethnicity were looked down at: everything resembling Ruthenian seemed to the eye of the Polish society as rustic, vulgar, savage, ignorant, something an educated and upstanding citizen should be ashamed of. Catholics had much better means for education and, therefore, the children of the Orthodox nobility were taught by the Catholics."

• • Polonska-Vasylenko in her history writes: "Polish szlachta looked arrogantly at anything alien and the Ukrainians faced a dilemma: to renounce political life or to get Polonized". One source is good, two sources even better. I will add a second ref to an article. --Irpen 10:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure I can find hundreds of sources claiming how Jews are greedy Irpen, but I won't ever dream of putting them in Judaism or any other Jewish related article. I am certain they are many stereotypical sources claiming whole Polish nation is catholic or hates Ruthenians but we shouldn't spread ethnic stereotypes on Wikipedia.--Molobo 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Claims of emotional nature that can't be confirmed:

"after the other they adopted the new religion and felt ashamed of the previous one."(he made a survey of who was ashemed ?)

• False claims contradicting historic knowledge

"In the Polish Ruthenia the person that belonged by blood and by position to the high society became unthinkable other than with the Roman-Catholic religion, with Polish language and with Polish views and perceptions."

• They were several high ranking nobles, families and administration officials of Orthodox faith.
  • See ref to Polonska above. --Irpen 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Then she is wrong. They were several high nobles of Orthodox faith and Ruthenian nationality.--Molobo 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• False claims contradicting historic knowledge:

"As for the Orthodoxy, in the eyes of the society it became the Religion rejected, the lowest one Worthy of the utmost contempt. It was not just the religion of the low-lives in general, like Unia, but the religion of the outcast low-lives," Several noble houses in Poland had the religion and did not abandon it.

• • Polonska-Vasylenko writes: Unlike the Lithuanian government which respected the Ukrainian high culture, the Polish government looked at it dissmissivly (arrogantly, i.) The Ukrainian Szlachta, the only group that could defend the Ukrainian interests, being by curtailed different restrictions lost its culture and got absorbed into a Polish szlachta. With time the remainder of the Ruthenian aristocracy disappear and the folklore survives only among peasants". Quotes by two authors agree, actually. Your calling those claims "false" does not make them such. Their being "emotional" or not, they are not used in the text. I will gladly add the second ref. Once the attacks stop, I am fine with cutting the quotes, keeping only the refs and the page numbers. --Irpen 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And I easly will provide quotes to disprove this false claim.--Molobo 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC) As this quote has several false claims, emotional POV judgments I suggest we remove it. Particulary due to false claims that people of Orthodox faith were "low-lifes" when in fact nobles and high administrative people had the faith. --Molobo 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, please note that you are not arguing with the information in the article but with the text which is not a part of the article. I do not insist on the lengthy ref's being given in the article in its entirety. I only translated it because the source is not in English. Please bring here the artcile's statements that you find disputable and we will discuss them. How to quote the refs is a much easier problem than the text of our article. --Irpen 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ekhem, the quote is part of the text-and is false in terms of historic accuracy, it can't be used. We seriously can't use a reference that makes simply false claims. --Molobo 00:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, you, as an pseudonymoys Wikipedian, cannot be an authority to claim the facts given by a source as "false". We argue facts here and support them by sources. You want to prove the facts wrong? Reference your claims to someone published rather than yourself. Now, please discuss the statement in the article rather than your general denial that a source is not to your liking. What exactly in the article text you dispute? Please answer this narrow question specifically rather than repeat what you have said previously. --Irpen 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Again you resort to personal attacks and removal of quoted text that makes debate impossible. Please stop. As to the rest-you can't use a reference to a controversial nationalist Pan-Slav and Slavophile that in addition makes false statements. --Molobo 00:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting until you answer a specific question. I underlined it for you above. --Irpen 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the use of this reference as it contains false information.--Molobo 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That the info is false needs to be referred to someone else showing that. Your opinion that it is false is not enough. Now, I repeat what statement in the article's text you dispute. Once we establish the article's content, we can agree to avoid long quotes in the refs. --Irpen 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I mention above several false claims as to people from Orthodoxy being "low-lives" in PLC and claims that make wild accusations that stereotype Poles as Catholics, or as being a nation that despises and has contempt for Ruthenians etc. This portion of article has to go, it is not of encyclopedic value. --Molobo 02:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

8th

This is my favorite one

According to some scholars the biggest successes in Polonisation of the non-Polish lands of former Commonwealth were achieved after the Partitions, in times of persecution of Polishness (noted by Leon Wasilewski (1917"ref Wasilewski L. (Wasilewski 1917) Kresy Wschodnie. — Warszawa: T-wo wydawnicze w Warszawie, 1917. p. VII as cited in (Smalyanchuk 2001), p.24./ref"), Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolsky (1926"ref(Dovnar 1926) pp.290—291,298.ref")). Paradoxically, the substantial eastward movement of the Polish ethnic territory (over these lands) and growth of the Polish ethnic regions were taking place exactly in the period of the strongest Russian attack on everything Polish in Lithuania and Belarus.'ref"In times of Myravyov the Hanger", as noted in (Wasilewski 1917), p. VII as cited in (Smalyanchuk 2001), p.24. See also the note on treatment of Polonisation as self-Polonisation./ref'

The referenced info that deals with facts of the early 19th century is attempted to be contradicted by a reference to the book that deals with the Muravyov's time that took place decades later. This is just ridiculous. --Irpen 23:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit of an off-topic:Hmm, in History of Russia which we edit together, we have similar thing-an entry about population from 1891 in sentence about Partitions. Judging by this example, you are in favour of deleting it ? Anyway persecution of Poles in Partition is a fact. It can be sourced if desired.--Molobo 23:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It can be sourced and used when we discuss the time in question. We are discussing a different time here. The original source is about the early century, the supposed rebuttal is about the later time. The claims are not exclusive and one cannot be used to make the other look implausible. --Irpen 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good then, I shall follow your advise.--Molobo 23:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Out with 19th century sources

Could we finally accept that historical works written over a hundred years ago are no longer reliable and should not be used as sources in Wikipedia? Even Jimbo Wales agrees. Here is an excerpt from an interview with him:

QUESTION: So there is still more to write?

JIMMY WALES: There is always the contemporary news, contemporary topics that need updating, and that can be lots of things. One thing I have looked at before is that when we started the project we thought we could use the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain. Use that as a base to get some articles. And frankly they were unusable. They were just out of date. So you would think, if the article is Julius Caesar, how much could have changed. A whole lot, frankly. Since 1911 a lot of our understanding of historical things has changed dramatically with discoveries in archeology and things like this. If you go digging around in 1911 Britannica you would get that white, male, colonial view of the world that shines through in surprising places. Things do change, even with something like Julius Caesar. You would think, gosh the Wikipedia article must be basically done. But I am sure it has been edited several times in the last week.

I think Jimbo is 100% right on this. Balcer 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should discuss the article. You dispute facts? You bring in the source. That is what historians do. --Irpen 01:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think context is needed also, some sources simply aren't reliable. A source from ideological thinker that opposes group X can have a lot facts about X that are invented and countering them is impossible if they are invented since you can't find something that relates to fiction. There is a wikipedia policy called reliable sources also, it should be applied here as the sources clearly aren't seen as reliable-mainly Slavophiles. Pan-Slavists, Nationalists, Stalinist-era historians etc. --Molobo 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That he was an ideological thinker and that he was "that opposing group X" is your own speculation. Until you start arguing facts and counterreferences, you can't prove anything wrong. --Irpen 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't an ideological thinker ? http://www.personal.psu.edu/dao5000/UnderEmpires.doc "Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius was a short-lived secret society that existed in Kiev during the time Ukraine was under the rule of the Russian Empire. The society was created under the initiative of Mykola Kostomarov, a famous Russian and Ukrainian historian. “The goals of the society were liberalization of the political and social system of the Imperial Russia in accordance with the members Christian principles and the Slavophile views that gained popularity among the country's liberal intelligentsia” (4). The final goal was the unification of all Slavs in the spirit of the Slavophilism of the time in a federated state in which Ukraine would play a leading role."

Slavophile ? Spirit of Slavophilism ? Federated state in which Ukraine would play a leading role ? It seems he was quite active political thinker. Slavophilism in itself was opposed to Poles.

Or this : http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-6779(196309)22%3A3%3C432%3AWWPP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X And statements of Kostomarov on the "gluttony and drunkenness" of the Poles should not serve as an inspiring starting point for such a study. http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/13/bilenky13.shtml Mykola Kostomarov, the prominent Slavic scholar and Ukrainophile

Sorry Irpen, the more I learn about his attitude the more I object to using him as a source on Polish history . --Molobo 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)--Molobo 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC) "Until you start arguing facts and counterreferences, you can't prove anything wrong." Per Wikipedia Reliable Sources the source has to be reliable to be used. --Molobo 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your link to personal.psu.edu web-site is a former Wikipedia fork, not a reliable source. This was an old version of the Kostomarov's own article long time since corrected. Additionally, that this is the personal site of someone unknown further reduces its usability. In fact, Kostomarov was at odds with the conservative schools of Slavophiles. For a representative historian of the Slavophile group, I refer you to Mikhail Koyalovich. He was indeed Pan-Slavist.

Your utoronto.ca link to Serhiy Bilenky's article is not critical or even impeaching Kostomarov in any way. Ukrainiphile? So what? Norman Davies is widely considered a Polonophile and even admits to that (here is one more on that.) Are we removing references to Davies from Wikipedia now?

I will be back with you later once I get and read the Jstor article you posted.

Still, most importantly, show facts contrary to those referred to Kostomarov. Rather than attacking the source, deal with facts referred to it. --Irpen 02:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen, Norman Davies isn't a ideologist of Polish organisation bent on creating a federation under leadership of Poland. You also confuse facts about ideological views of nationalist activists with historic facts. "He was indeed Pan-Slavist" So an ideological thinker, despite claims otherwise before. --Molobo

Well, Molobo, I don't care what you think Davies is or is not. All I am saying is that the claim you found that someone is a something-phile does not make the source impeacheable. The rest is irrelevant. --Irpen 04:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway as to your desire for serious sources, I have searched for some: Ucrainica at Harvard The Ukrainian Research Institute's 25th-Anniversary Exhibition at Houghton Library, Harvard University http://www.huri.harvard.edu/ucrainica/19cent_sum.html The arrest, in 1847, and subsequent exile of Shevchenko, Panteleimon Kulish, Mykola Kostomarov, and other members of the Brotherhood of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, a secret society that promoted utopian Christian and Slavophile ideals So indeed he was part of Slavophile movement-a movement that had opposition to Poles and Poland as part of its core beliefs.

More: Straddling Borders: Literature and Identity in Subcarpathian Rus' - Page 212 by Rusinko, Elaine - Foreign Language Study - 2003 - 576 pages The Slavophile Ukrainian nationalist Mykola Kostomarov So now indeed not only a Slavophile but also a nationalist.

More: National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine - Page 311 by Ilya Prizel - Political Science - 1998 - 464 pages Kostomarov agreed that Slavs and Slavs alone truly embraced the spirit of Christ. Poland's Christian values however, had degenerated as Poland developed into a brutal aristocratic state enserfing its people and the Ukrainians(...) only Ukraine retained the true Slavic-Christian egalitarianism(...). It was Ukraine's mission to reawaken the true Slavic spirit etc. This is a powerfull nationalist, not a historian. Again I do not believe his works are objective rather then ideological to prove his nationalist ideology. Such a ideological thinker can't be used as source for objective historic information--Molobo 03:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All the claims are now sourced. A Ukrainian nationalist member of group supporting leadership of Ukraine against other nations, a supporter of ideology of Slavophilism that opposed Poles and Poland as part of its ideology. Such a person is not reliable-his text are ideologic not scientific and can't be viewed with trust. --Molobo 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Molobo, it does not work this way, by going to Google or Google books and entering a string that would among all the mentions of the name would give the combination you want. I can produce dozens of quotes were he is referred to as a scholar of an extremely high standing. If you were a slightest bit familiar with the subject you would have realized how incompatible it is to be a Slavophile in the sense of the word that you put in it and the Ukrainian nationalist at the same time. The Slavophile school was all about Great Russia and its mission of uniting Slavs under the Great Russian leadership. This ideas do not exactly fit the "Ukrainian nationalism" concept, do they?

I will need time to consume the new links that you google. But, coincidentalky, I obtained and read the Halecki paper from the Slavic Review you linked in its entirety. This work is essentially a polemic of Prof. Halecki with Prof. Backus where the former is sharply critical of the latter. Amusingly, there is no single mention of Kostomarov in the article, so I cannot check the context. What I could do, I checked myself in what context Kostomarov used the terms "gluttery and drunkenness" wrt to Poles. It was easy, since all his works are online and I simply entered a the Russian words and check through. I found out that he said so when speaking about the debauchery of the Polish mercenaries in Moscow soon after crowning False Dmitry I. And he speaks nothing about the Polish nation in general, he speaks specifically about the behavior of the mercenaries. I advice you to read the accounts of the witness of this events, the Polish officer Mikolaj Marchocki whose diary has been published undeer the title "Historia Wojny Moskiewskiej"

Even more amusingly, I encountered this page were the "History of Poland" by Halecki is called "written from a Catholic and nationalist standpoint". Nice, huh? So, by your logic, we cannot use as a source of criticism of Kostomarov, because someone else called his writing to represent a "nationalist standpoint"

I consider this sort of argument unworthy. You have to argue facts. I presented facts and sources. Until you show the facts wrong, they stay in. Your attempting to attack the author trying to find any excuse does not cut. Piotrus tried that too, and, frankly, this is not anywhere close to a serious debate. Please start arguing facts or cut it now. --Irpen 05:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You presented only facts about Kostamarovs views not about history. As he is a nationalist Ukrainian Slavophile that believed in mission of Ukraine to lead other nations he can't be used as source of objective historic knowledge.--Molobo 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Some good reasons to exclude his works as valid references. Still, as far as I am concerned, the fact that he lived over a century ago (1817-1885) disqualifies him all by itself. Quite simply, quoting 19th century historians as sources is just not serious, if newer historical works are available (and in this case they surely are). There is such a thing as progress in sciences and humanities after all. While older historians might write well and be enjoyable to read, they quite simply have none of the advantages enjoyed by modern academics (detachment, neutrality, perspective, better access to archives, modern understanding about economics, epidemiology, biology, agriculture, science in general etc, not to mention being able to draw on the vast body of work produced by the stupendous expansion of academia in general in the last century). So, could we finally stop this nonsense? I am in no mood to spend my time studying 19th century scholars to find faults with their work - it is faulty by definition. Balcer 03:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What good reasons, Balcer? This is not a serious debate! Attacking the author for the lack of any argument. If you have any sources written by modern scholars on the issue, just bring them in and we discuss the facts and the references. I am tired of this endless attempts to find any way to impeach the source whose content some do not like. Please do not post any more of this. Bring in sourced facts and we discuss them. --Irpen 05:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone tried to put in a claim in a physics, chemistry or medicine Wikipedia article referenced by a 19th century publication, that would not stand for a minute. At best, immediate confirmation from a modern source would be demanded, and rightly so. But for some reason, you claim that it is ok to use 19th century references for articles related to history. For the life of me, I just don't get it. What is it about a history book that makes it valid for all time, where a science book more than 100 years old is practically worthless, except as an item for a rare book collector. Do you really fail to understand the idea of progress in research? Balcer 05:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, first of all, some of 100-yr ago physics and especially mathematics is still valid. Some is false as some did not exist. But even for the valid topics, new books were written no less exhaustive than the old ones. I have not seen a detailed biography of prince Ostrogsky who is credited the most for resistance to an attempted Catolicization of Ukraine in his time. There is no comparable study of the issue since Kostomarov that I know. If you are familiar with the similarly detailed studies of the subject in question, please bring them in and we will discuss them. Of all the books on history of UA I've seen, and I've seen many, nothing ever contradicts this article, only complements it. Serious scholars can differ on their interpretations but they always tend to agree on facts. I looked in 5 major books on UA history just today. I will add info to be sure in a due time. The reason why I used Kostomarov was the great detail of his work, its online availability and my good familiarity with him, so that I remembered where the info is. When I bring in more of the other sources into the article, they will agree with him on facts 100%.

I believe Yuri Tarasevich also used the best sources we have on the respective period of the Belarusian history. The authors are certainly very respectable and not a single work was found to counter the facts. Molobo's repetition about them being "fantastic" does not count, does it? Smalyanchuk wrote an entire book devoted to the 19th century Polish movement in Belarus and Lithuania. Piotrus' attempt to attack the book by bringing in the source that describes the suppression of Poles decades letter does not even need a comment.

I call on you one more time to get into a serious discussion of the facts if you want to challenge anything that the article says. Molobo's endless general claims about the author's views and attacks on their character is not helping us to establish facts. So far he failed to bring a single reference to support the version of the article he wants to see. Point to me waht missing facts need to me examined analyzed and properly included in the article. What facts you dispute? If you want to help, please do. I expect to see another series of non-specific escapades from Molobo since this is all he has done so far. I have no intention to spend any more time on these. Piotrus listed some facts from the article here for discussion. Which one you want to dispute? Please be specific and we will move from there. --Irpen 09:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Stalinist Belarussian nationalists, Slavophiles, Ukrainian nationalists, authors who claim Polish nation despises Ruthenia and is all Catholic aren't reliable sources. I already have provided multiple sources confirming their ideological comittment to movements opposed to Poland and Poles. Bring non-ideological historians please.--Molobo 13:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A longer answer is not a more correct answer, Irpen. Sorry, but I am not going to spend my valuable time veryfing the work of 19th century historians. If you really cannot grasp that history as a field of study makes progress and that 19th century works on just about any subject are as a rule no longer reliable, then we have nothing more to discuss. Again, I think no progress is being made in this discussion. The only recourse I see is requesting some neutral opinion on the subject. Maybe an RfC would be a proper venue. Balcer 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's find a way out of this impasse. Since you claim that many modern works that you have seen are in full agreement with the 19th century authors you cite here, let us then use those modern references instead of the 19th century ones. I have started this replacement by citing Subtelny in two places, on points which his work broadly supports (though the wording may be changed in the future to reflect more precisely Subtelny's viewpoint on this). Let us continue this process to remove this source of controversy. Balcer 23:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

At last! Sure, I've been proposing this all along. I spent much time today reading Nataliya Iakovenko (ISBN 966767973X)), Hrushevsky, Polonska-Vasylenko (ISBN 5325005898), Stubtelny and Wilson. I don't have Magosci right now but I will try to get my hands on it soon. There is absolutely no contradiction between the sources whatsoever and more sources can be brought to support the current version of the article as well as expand it. As every article that developed through edit wars, there are several pieces (subjects of independent edit wars) that need to be recompiled but with no sourced info or sources removed. I am doing this as we speak with exception of attending some everyday things.

On a side note, I am very upset by the radical change of the lead section which is a very provocative action when the dispute is at such heat, especially since it now became so weaselized and misleading. It is a cheap way of getting the most POV-effective change with the least effort, biggest bang for a buck, by altering the lead distorting it away from the article and objectivity. The lead's function is to illustrate the article. It is easy and cheap to quickly edit the lead altering it dramatically, while the article took so much effort and compromise to achieve and the lead was written and discussed to agree on the current version. Introducing unexpected dramatic changes to the lead built so painstakingly, especially in the middle of the heated debate about the content, is very unhelpful. I need a little time to fix the article.

Talk to you later at this page. --Irpen 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Old sources

First, let's be clear about what Jimbo was referring to. There are people who have been porting in the entire 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica and other works that are now somewhat embarassing (but PD). That kind of thing is noxious, and yet it chalks up high edit counts. The reason it is noxious is important, here. It was absolutely endemic in 1900 to judge one's subject. 1911 EB entries on authors not only provide information but also rule on whether the authors are worth reading or not, and which works show the best spirit.

The facts have not changed, largely, but we no longer pass judgments. It is not that the 1911 EB is a bad source -- it is a very, very good source -- but that it contains inappropriate judgments. The same would be true of, for example, Winston Churchill's A History of the English Speaking Peoples or Woodrow Wilson's History of the United States or Thomas Babbington Macaulay's History of England: The facts would be reputable, interesting, useful, and necessary, but the judgments might not be. In other words, one can cite them quite properly, but no one would say that these are the best histories to read.

There is Nationalism and nationalism. As an historical phenomenon, Nationalism was the dominant spirit of the later 19th century. It was all over Europe. It is a very different thing from nationalism today. The former was a naive belief in one's own virtues. The latter is an invidious belief in one's superiority to one's neighbors. Prove that Irpen's author is a Nationalist in the 19th century sense, and you have proven nothing (and it hasn't been proven) except that he was a historian. Prove that he is a nationalist in the contemporary sense of the term, and you indict his honesty.

Is Irpen citing the conclusions and the characterizations and the moral judgments of his source or the facts? If the former, then surely he's pushing a point of view. If the latter, he's complying fully with scholarly practice. In simple terms: there is nothing wrong with citing an old source's information, but there is something wrong with citing its valuations.

Scholarly practice is to use the most current references solely so that the reader knows that the author has read everything, not because there is anything inherently better about them. In fact, most contemporary sources will be based on the older ones, especially for their primary research. If there is nothing more current, then a 19th century source is fine. If you go to read an article on Tulip Mania in a contemporary journal, you may well find a citation to Charles Mackay's 19th century Popular Delusions and the Extraordinary Madness of Crowds. Are they all inferior to us? Are they infected by Mackay's anti-democratic spirit? No: they're using the best source out there, the source with the primary research, and they're filtering out the anti-democratic conclusions. Utgard Loki 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well said. As I wrote above, I certainly don't object to relatively uncontroversial pure facts, but we should not repeat or translate the 19th century non-neutral language.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be historical works from the 19th century which did such a good job studying a certain area of history and analysing the primary references that little useful scholarly work on their subject has been done since. This may be the case especially for well defined events localised in space and time (Tulip mania is a good example, another may be a study of a particular battle). However, I believe that such cases are the exception rather than the rule. Many arguments for this can be given, let me just mention advances in all areas of science in the last 100 years that history writing benefits from, plus the simple fact that the number of historians in academia experienced a huge increase over the last 100 years, so the number of subjects untouched since the 19th century must be small indeed, unless of course they are so obscure now as to be of little interest. So, the correct approach is to use modern references, even if they are mostly based on 19th century research, unless indeed there are no modern references available (that is not the case here, as even those who added the 19th century references have affirmed). Balcer 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Utgard Loki (he affirms my view on this, actually), and in principle I agree with Balcer here. BUT! We have to take into account that there are subjects so burdened with ideology, that a serious work on them is just rare. Not everybody wants to make a serious scholarly study of Polonization in Belarus, as this is a sore subject here. The "official" histor. school is content with something close to West-Russism. The "independents", of those praising the glorious Belarusian-Polish past, won't seriously touch the 19th century with a long stick. Or else -- let me be frank -- they would quickly lose their... international :) grants if they dare.

In fact, I'm in some wonder over the work of Smalyanchuk, him actually going ahead and digging in this (2 monographs on Polish national activism in Belarusian lands so far, however, he deals with post-1864 events, mostly).

So, Dovnar's "History of Belarus" (banned in 1926, and published in 1994.) is one of such valuable and actually existing works because it's a) based on a extensive archive material b) not subscribing to any ideology wholesale c) treating the exact subject, extensively, and in the whole 19th cent. timespan.

Okay, I don't know, probably the language of my recount was somewhat clumsy -- I tried to press Dovnar's tens (hundreds?) of pages into one paragraph, and wanted to elaborate, but frankly, with all the Piotrus violent opposing to adding the material at all, I just lost the heart to spend further effort on this. Even Smalyanchuk's valuable observation on double-interpretation of the concept got mauled. Yury Tarasievich 06:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

About "repeating the 19th c. language", I did not repeat anything. I translated merely for the footnotes, and not the article's body, to make the ref verifiable for users who don't read Russian and have no access to the source. If facts are recited in modern sources, by all means add them. If they are contradicted, by all means add another POV, provided it is not a fringe one. I will re-examine my references to old works to make sure they point to facts and not judgment and will remove judgments. We should be careful with judgments in general, even provided by modern sources. Only judgments that are widely accepted belong to the main body. It requires a lot of good faith and integrity in addition to familiarity with the subject in order to sort out the judgments. Finally, should we move this thread to the bottom of the page? --Irpen 19:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes should not serve as the place to shovel in material that would not pass muster in the body of the article. It most certainly is not the place to add stronly POV statements, containing conclusions and the characterizations and the moral judgments described by Utgard Loki above. They also do not need to contain long passages from the reference "proving" the point. There is no need for that (since we assume that editors are adding references in good faith), and it is not a practice that is in general followed in Wikipedia.Balcer 21:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well, then, I will keep in mind that you believe that the refs I add honestly reflect the original material. But since there were attacks on that in the past, I wanted to make sure the attacker could verify the refs. But the facts themselves, if referenced, are valid and should not be removed because of someobe;s disagreeing with them. BTW, Balcer, pls provide page numbers in your refs to Subtelny. I don't know which edition you were using to do it myself. Except very limited circumstances, page numbers or section names or some other locators should be given when referring to large books. --Irpen 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Partitions, language and national identity

According to "Snobizm i postęp" by Stefan Żeromski (sources of data most likely not too difficult to be traced), Partitions of Poland resulted in illiteracy rate exceeding 50% among the entire population of Second Polish Republic. That's an outright destruction of the sense of identity for the country. In modern contexts, reading and writing at a level adequate for communication, or at a level that lets one understand and communicate ideas in a literate society, is the only way to take part in that society. --Poeticbent talk 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: You're welcome to translate, for a better understanding of the positive, cultural context of Polonization in the years of Second Polish Republic.

Eugenia Prokop-Janiec, "Polskie dziedzictwo kulturowe w nowej Europie." Humanistyka jako czynnik kształtowania tożsamości europejskiej Polaków.

Dla strony polskiej z kolei charakterystyczne wydaje się w tym okresie przywiązanie do myślenia o jednym języku narodowym jako trwałym fundamencie kultury i utożsamiania granic kulturowych z granicami językowymi. Jest oczywiste, że jednojęzyczność bądź wielojęzyczność kultury ma istotne znaczenie nie tylko rozumienia na jej gruncie fenomenu pogranicza, ale i miejsca, jakie może mu zostać w niej wyznaczone(...) Dziś wydaje się, że z powodzeniem zastosować można również do jego opisu zaproponowany przez Antoninę Kłoskowską model kultury narodowej jako syntagmy. Koncepcja Kłoskowskiej opiera się na założeniu, że kultury narodowe nie są ani zamkniętymi, ani homogenicznymi całościami. Są otwarte, historycznie zmienne, a o włączaniu w ich obręb nowych/ obcych elementów decydują selekcyjne filtry o charakterze społecznym. “Każdy rozwinięty naród buduje własną i uważną za własną kulturę w kontaktach z innymi, zwłaszcza, ale nie wyłącznie, z sąsiednimi zbiorowościami. Odwzorowaniem tego procesu jest sfera przyswojenia i adaptacji kultur odmiennych od genetycznie własnej [...]”. Kultury sąsiedzkie mogą zarówno przejmować od siebie elementy, jak i uciekać się do rozmaitych mechanizmów oporu wobec takiej wymiany. O wzajemnym kulturowym dystansie decyduje ostatecznie typ międzygrupowych kontaktów, przesądzający o odrzuceniu lub adaptacji wzorów innej kultury.

--Poeticbent talk 16:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of this article will always be contentious, as this article is very close to the heart of a number of nations. Everyone will have to compromise here. Please avoid reverting each other as this only fuels the fire. We can discuss here, every sentence if need be.

Still, I would ask Irpen and everybody else to avoid sweeping statements like: "The state suppression of the Orthodox and even the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church ...". Suppression is a very strong word, meaning a serious attempt to completely eliminate something from public life. Now surely Poland of the interwar period came nowhere close to doing that. The article describes various actions that were surely aimed against these churches to some extent, but they were nowhere strong enough to warrant the word "suppression". Heck, that most important of Polish state institutions, the Polish army, maintained a service of Orthodox military chaplains (described in pl:Prawosławny Ordynariat Wojska Polskiego, maybe that article warrants translation). How is that for "suppression" for you? Please, think before using words here which will drive the other side up the wall. This article will have to be a compromise, not an expose of "your" version of history. This applies to everyone here. Balcer 15:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, my edit that took me literally hours to write, that included the restoration of the lead structure (definition + two examples in chronological order), elaboration on each, adding refs, grammar correction, was rudely and dismissively reverted by Poeticbent.

This is an extremely hostile way of editing. I did not start this. Lead was stable, the article was extremely contentious and out of the blue a user kicks in completely changing the lead, thus altering the tone of the entire article. Currently, the lead correctly summarizes the referenced text of the article. Poeticbent seems not interested in spending time developing the main body, that took me days to write and reference. He just kicks in with a lazy and quick-fix way to achieve maximum POV with minimum effort. Leaving the text intact and dramatically rewriting the lead making it disconnected from the rest of the article.

For the church "suppression", the term you did not like, which one applies im your opinion? I did not use "persecution", indeed a stronger term. How would you call what was done to UGCC and even a less politicized Orthodox Church in the northwestern UA and BE. Do you remember our discussion of Bohdanowicz in the Nevsky cathedral article? A staunch defender of his Belarusian consistuents? Try googling on what happened to him in the Second PL Republic. I am willing to discuss your suggestion, compromise on the terms but as long as something is referenced it cannot be rudely removed with offensive edit summary Undid revision by Irpen rants inspired by Soviet propaganda. The issue about the number of Jews in Poland was added to the lead out of the blue and it is discussed nowhere in the article. Neither the benefits of "educating the rustic minorities" through giving them the Polish culture" is the lead material. I have tens of refs on the condition of Ukrainian churches in interward PL (none of them Soviet btw.)

Let's have a normal discussion on what terminology is best and how much is the lead material. Hostile undoing of hours of my work, writing and referencing with the aim to have the article and lead written from the Polish perspective is intolerable and should stop.--Irpen 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting provides momentary satisfaction but in the longer term achieves absolutely nothing. My suggestion would be to hammer out the lead here on the discussion page. Why don't we do the usual thing in such difficult cases: put both versions side by side and slowly hammer out a concensus version, by converging them in stages. Balcer 23:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting of a an edit that took hours to make also literally kills the work of another editor. Before hammering the lead we should hammer the text. The lead ideally should be devoid of references, it should summarize the main body where everything is agreed and facts are referenced. Before hammering out the lead, we should agree on the basic things that are currently in the article. Poeticbent did not touch the article. Does it mean he has no grief with it?

One more time I suggest all interested parties to state here what in the text of the main body needs changed and what needs to be added. The lead should reflect the text, both by structure and content. Piotrus listed above several statements from the current text. They all seem supported by refs and I will add more referencing. I will add a 20th century ref to each and every statement referenced to Kostomarov. What other facts should be added? What else is contested? Please list this in an orderly way.

Once the text emerges in mutually agreeable version, we will make sure the lead is representative of the text as it is now. Let's not put the issue on its head by discussing the lead and than rewriting the article to fit the lead. The lead should fit the article, not the other way around.

One more thing the article needs is better structuring that can only be achieved in collegial mode of editing by users who respect each other's work. If we keep bickering about every fact, especially the referenced one, if references are removed (!) and replaced with tl:POV-statement we would never reach the stage of harmonious editing. --Irpen 23:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and yet again I was reverted without explanation. Poeticbent, it is your at least 3rd revert in 24 hours, if not the fourth one. Either use talk or leave it to others. Please see above, what exactly in the main body you contest? The lead cannot be written independently from the text. This is cheap and hostile. --Irpen 23:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, you can’t be serious!! You started your so called "edit" by wiping out everything I did. You added insult to injury by a mean edit summary,[16] and you expected to be taken seriously?! The article was and still is very negative in tone thanks to your nationalistic bias. However, if you want me to look at your work seriously and consider your point of view, than please take me seriously first. Wikipedia is not about your way, or the highway. I changed the lead because it was the right thing to do. You did not challenge anything I wrote, instead you just deleted it. And you think this is acceptable? --Poeticbent talk 23:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Poeticbent, that edit summary was not directed at you but at another user who did not make a single proposal at the article's talk, a single content edit but tagged the whole article and the reference to every statement he did not like, revert-warred to keep the tag and flooded this talk page with kilobytes of text rendering the discussion of the article impossible. Unfortunately, from what I know from experience with this user, this is bound to continue at this page and it is very difficult (or even impossible) to discuss the articles at the talk pages where this user chooses to insert himself.

Speaking of summaries, your use of the undo button while the message calls to never use except reverting vandalism is very offensive as this is the same as the rvv summary. What's more, in another summary you call my edits "rants inspired by Soviet propaganda aimed at fueling tensions". With such summaries, I think you should self-confer about their perception by your peers. --Irpen 08:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You both at least reached the 3RR limit by my quick count. It really does not matter who is more at fault here. Just stop it. Take a break. Why don't we leave this article alone for a day or two, and restart with a fresh attitude? Balcer 00:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, I make it a point not only to stay away from 3RR but to stay as close as possible to 1RR. Unfortunately, I had to revert the article indeed two (not three) times in one day. I was not happy about it. I suggest we restart and follow the commons sense by addressing first the content of the article, and not necessarily in a day or two, we do not have to wait. The lead should be reflective of the article's content and it currently is. Poeticbend did not touch the article, did not say a word at talk and dramatically altered the lead making it disconnected from the rest of the text in contravention of WP:LEAD. It is an easy way to make the most effective POV-changes with the least effort but it contravenes common sense as well as the guidelines. IF something needs to be changed, the changes in the body should be the starting point. Lead should summarize the article, not the other way around.

Also, I would appreciate if you return to your normally restrained tone in the discussion. Your recent accusations of xenophobia (made thrice in one day) and stating that your time being somehow too valuable to conduct the discussions with your content opponents is not helping to achieve peace and harmony.

You reverted Ghirla's edit claiming that his edit summary alone justifies reverting him. I hope you stay consistent with this approach and will also undo the edits with edit summaries that accuse editors in vandalism (such as "undo") or calling their opponents edits "rants inspired by Soviet propaganda". Thanks in advance, --Irpen 08:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead by Poeticbent

Lead by Irpen

Polonization (Polish: polonizacja, spolszczenie) can be undersood in two different ways. On the one hand, it is a process of reclaiming Polish culture, especially Polish language, including education, religion, infrastructure and administration, from under the prolonged periods of foreign occupation by the neighboring empires of Russia, Prussia, and Austria-Hungary. For example, the Polonization of Second Polish Republic was of vital importance for Polish state in the face of growing threat of World War II. The process, implemented through the newly established public education system, was at times peripheral in the face of a parallel drive of other Eastern European nations toward self-determination. However, it also resulted in the creation of a new, educated class of people from amongst the non-Polish minorities, a class of intellectuals aware of the importance of schooling, press, literature and theatre, who became instrumental in the development of their own ethnic identities. On the other hand, Polonization can be understood as a process of acquisition or imposition of elements of Polish culture, especially Polish language, by non-Polish populations of the same territories. An example of Polonization of non-ethnic Poles is sometimes compared to assimilationist policies implemented by other European powers that have aspired to regional dominance (e.g., Germanization, Russification) or to policies carried out by countries aiming at increasing the role of their native language in their own societies (e.g., Rumanization, Ukrainization).

Polonization was especially noted during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795) and during the Second Polish Republic (1918-1939), though the process was different. Under the Commonwealth, Polish culture, itself influenced by the Western world, attracted the upper classes of the Ruthenian (Belarusian and Ukrainian) and Lithuanian communities, leading to those classes' lesser or greater distancing from their ethnic roots.

Polonization was sometimes closely related to conversion to the Roman Catholic faith, as in some areas and in some historical periods being Polish culturally and Roman Catholic by religion was almost the same, although the correlation was by no means universal. The promotion of the Roman Catholic Church at the expense of the Orthodox Churches was the aspect of Polonization most resented by Belarusian and Ukrainian masses. In contrast the Lithuanians, who were mostly Catholic, were in danger of losing their cultural identity as a nation, but that didn't become evident for the wide masses of Lithuanians until the Lithuanian national renaissance in the middle of the 19th century.

In the twentieth century the Second Polish Republic's Polonization policies were aimed at rebuilding the Polish national identity after the Partitions of Poland. The attempts at establishing Polish administration and state institutions of the new Republic were often interpreted by non-ethnic populations of Poland as intended to achieve an ethnically homogeneous state. Notably, over one third of interwar Poland was non-Polish, including a large number of Jews that imigrated to Poland until 1921 as a result of Russian pogroms. State policies relied mainly on emphasizing the Polish language in education and promoting its use in the country. The proponents of this policy hoped that it would result in the Polish language becoming more popular over the continuum of a few generations. Given the short time span in which they were applied, these policies, applied with varying intensity, contributed to increased ethnic tensions which led to large scale violence during World War II.

Polonization (Polish: polonizacja) is the acquisition or imposition of elements of Polish culture, especially Polish language, as experienced in some historic periods by non-Polish populations of territories controlled or substantially influenced by Poland. Depending on the historic context, this phenomenon can be understood in two different ways.

On the one hand, Polonization can be seen as an example of cultural assimilation, similar to the assimilationist policies, forcible or not, implemented by other European powers that have aspired to regional dominance (e.g., Germanization, Russification.) Such view is widely considered applicable to the time of the expansion of the Polish influence into Ruthenia and Lithuania during the existense of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569-1795) when the Ruthenian and Lithuanian upper classes were drawn towards the "Polishness", attracted both by the glamor of the "Westernized" Polish culture, political and financial benefits of such transition, as well as, sometimes, by the administrative pressure exerted on their own cultural institutions, primarily the Orthodox Church. The conversion to the Roman Catholic faith was often the single most important step of the Polonization as for Ruthenians of that time being Polish culturally and Roman Catholic by religion was almost the same. This aspect of the Polonization that led to the diminishing of the Orthodox Church was most resented by Belarusian and Ukrainian masses. In contrast the Lithuanians, who were mostly Catholic, were in danger of losing their cultural identity as a nation, but that didn't become evident for the wide masses of Lithuanians until the Lithuanian national renaissance in the middle of the 19th century.

On the other hand, the Polonization policies of the Polish government in the later context of the interwar years of the twentieth century, are often viewed as an attempted solution to the no less than existential problem of the newly re-established Polish state seen endangered by its larger and more populous neighbors (USSR and Germany), as well as by the fact that one third of Poland's population was ethnically non-Polish, some had their own nationhood aspirations thwarted and had alienation to "Polishness" to varying degree. Part of the country's leadership emphasized the need for the ethnic and cultural homogeneity for the state to be feasible in the long term and many of their non-Polish subjects saw the processes of the governmental advancement of the Polish language in the administration, the public life and, especially, the education while discriminating against other languages, as an attempted homogenization forcibly imposed on them. The state suppression of the Orthodox and even the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, for the latter's strong Ukrainian national character, received an especially dire reception of the ethnic minorities. The proponents of this policy hoped that it would result in the Polish language becoming dominant over the continuum of a few generations. However, given the short time span in which they were applied, these policies, applied with varying intensity, fell far short of their aim, but contributed to increased ethnic tensions which led to large scale interethnic violence during World War II.

---

Nice formatting job. Now, how about each one of you highlights the text that you cannot accept in the version of the other side. Then we will know where the main problems lie. Balcer 03:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we do not start this off with the wrong foot. The article's main body comes first and foremost. The lead should summarize it. The lead should not be dramatically altered in a way that makes it inconsistent with the rest of the article. Ideally, the lead should not include references either. The lead should be based not on the references, but on the rest of the article with the latter being referenced. References in the lead is usually a sign of sloppiness, POV-pushing, laziness or the fact that the article was attacked by tagging statements in the lead even though the latter reflect correctly the referenced parts of the article. This often necessitates adding refs to the lead rather than going the right (and long) way through explaining to the tagger that the facts are already referenced.

So, what exactly should be changed in the text beyond some merging and reorganizing of the existing material? Adding new info will always help with the exception that the info must be relevant. The discussion will be very difficult to have once Molobo resumes flooding this page with baseless attacks on the authors and sources he happen to not like. I don't know what can possibly be done about that. --Irpen 08:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the article as it stands would indicate, that the term Polonization refers only to a social phenomenon of dire consequences for the minorities. It is a stereotype most explained in Cold War era historiography. In my edits, I introduced a different understanding of the concept inspired by contemporary Polish scholars. It would be impossible for me to influence the content of the article without challenging its thesis. That’s why the lead was the only place to do it. Meanwhile, the negative aspect of Polonization is elaborated on in just one elongated chapter called Historic periods, where a single sided interpretation is explained in minute detail. There was nothing there for me to change at this stage. I’m aware of the negative aspects of this phenomenon as explained in the lead by Irpen. The article is missing the fact that Polonization was also a government policy aimed at developing a modern society, no different from the concept of the melting pot in the US. “The melting pot – as the lead of the article says – is a metaphor for the way in which homogeneous societies develop, in which the ingredients in the pot (people of different cultures, races and religions) are combined so as to develop a multi-ethnic group of people.” The lead says also. “This process has been equated with cultural assimilation and acculturation.” So it is possible to see it both ways. The process of Polonization had positive and negative side effects. We ought to work on that thesis, before making sure that the article conforms to it. --Poeticbent talk 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Poeticbent, the article does not use a single reference from the cold war era. So, this argument is moot. If you want to "challenge the thesis" of the article, you start from the article, not from the lead. I repeat, what is missing from the article? Why did not you add a word to the main body? I think I explained above why you chose that easy quick-POV approach. If you think that the polonization's "positive" "civilizational" "modernizing" or other aspects are missing from the article, try adding it to the article first. The lead disconnected from the article is a bad style. Currently the article goes by chronology. You think it needs a section that is the outside the chronological flow? Perhaps, the aspects of Polonization you want can be added to each section as the processes were certainly different and their "positive" impetus, if any, cannot be the same in so drastically different times. Your quick-reverting of my edits, with the deletion of references I added to the article is a bad sign.

Now, Piotrus has done exactly the same. His last revert again removed sources I carefully added, including even the chapters and sections of the books. Seems like Piotrus does not like the article to be better referenced. Or considers it having the "right POV" more important than its being referenced or its lead reflecting WP:MOS.

One more time I beg you to please start discussing changes you want to implement from the article's body. Once the article will change, the lead will change as well. I beg you also to edit carefully, as reverts or sloppy edits, often remove valid corrections and references, exactly like Piotrus have done. Ideas and references should be in the body of the article. Ideally, none should be in the lead. Please start discussing the article changes and be specific. Adding the material is much more likely to be acceptable than removing referenced statements. Should we preserve the chronological structure or go by something else? I believe all aspects of each Polonization wave can be discussed in relevant section about the period. What do you say?

Finally, you seem like a reasonable person. I also managed to work with Balcer before. I ask you both to please restrain Molobo from rendering this discussion impossible like he did just above. If his flooding continues, there is no way to hear each other. --Irpen 05:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, how do you recognize a badly written article with an ethnic bias? I tell you how I do it, outside of Wikipedia that is. I read the first three paragraphs and decide whether to keep on reading or move on and save myself unnecessary grief and a whole lot of time. I can’t pass the first three paragraphs of this article in spite of your pleas. The lead is a piece of crap. Polonization as an “attempted solution to the no less than existential problem of the newly re-established Polish state seen endangered by its larger and more populous neighbors”?! For God’s sake, Poland was attacked again in 1939. The proof of the living threat was in the proverbial pudding. No “existential problem” there. I find your attitude to be unfair and manipulative. You removed my reference in a blink of an eye, but throw your hands around about other editors removing your reference. This is a mistreatment of a role of an editor. --Poeticbent talk 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that my new version, combining both of the above, will prove a satisfactory compromise for both sides.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions of POV tags

I consider that sprinkling of the text with POV tags to be bogus, and actually to go against the Wikipedia policy of NPOV, which tells that to achieve NPOV the major POVs are to be balanced in the text, and that the language employed is neutral.

On majorness, I assure you that Dovnar's view (dispensing with the wholesale Tsarism/Russia bashing and initiating close look at the 19th century) is quite academic and major. Has followers as well.

Possibly, it's the language you don't like? It isn't the attempt of suppressing the unlikable opinion, is it? Yury Tarasievich 05:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the 19th century language is quite outdated, and definitely expresses the strong POV of the time. Since Dovnar has modern day academics who can be considered his followers, let's cite their works instead of his. Irpen agreed that he will take the same approach with Kostomarov's citations. Once modern references are in, there will be no reason to have the POV tags. Balcer 06:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is most annoying to see people defend Molobo's edits, when the Britannica is accused of "POV-statements" and whatnot, just because it does not buttress his favoured POV. We have seen that stuff before. I believe the POV-pushers overstepped the mark once too often in regard to this article. It spotlights what Wikipedia should avoid at all cost: tendentious editing and nationalist mythologizing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see how exactly historian's living (partly) in 19th disqualifies his factual and detailed account of the 19th century events.

Anyway, formerly I introduced some conclusions from work of contemporary researcher of Polonisation, Smalyanchuk, who borrows from Dovnar. As I recall, this also was deemed "not good", on a grounds of someone's being unfamiliar with the concepts.

I view all this opposing guised as a want of "modern sources" as a plain smoke screen covering the staunch resolution to not allow introducing of any opinion, contradicting someone's favourite (national?) mythology. Yury Tarasievich 07:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of accusing each other of bad faith, can't we all simply agree that modern historical works are better than 19th century ones, and make appropriate replacements of references? History is a discipline that makes progress after all.

Since all the supporters of 19th century references here agree that there exist modern works that support those references 100%, why don't we just use those modern sources? After all, Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is supposed to reflect most up to date research, that feature constituting one of its main advantages compared to traditional encyclopedias. Balcer 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, primarily I use what I've got at hand. Coincidentally, this is one of the major works in the field (history of Belarus, esp. in 19th century), and is considered solid to this day (and used as a basis for modern research). If you don't want to see it used on this subject, then I guess you ought to find some modern revisionism of it, addressing its scientifical shortcomings regarding this subject. More in following reply to Piotrus' remark. Yury Tarasievich 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote Jimbo on Britannica: "we thought we could use the 1911 Britannica which is in the public domain. Use that as a base to get some articles. And frankly they were unusable. They were just out of date. [...] A whole lot, frankly. Since 1911 a lot of our understanding of historical things has changed dramatically with discoveries in archeology and things like this. If you go digging around in 1911 Britannica you would get that white, male, colonial view of the world that shines through in surprising places." That, of course, applies to a lot of similar outdated reseearch: simply put, if possible, it should not be used on Wikipedia. That said, I'll certainly agree that often a 19th century citation is better then no citation. But an article relying on such old sources is likely not to be most neutral, nor correct. That we have agreed to update citations here is good; if some users don't plan on helping with them, at least please don't stop others from doing so with pointless debates.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, possibly, let us talk about something completely different -- a Wikipedia NPOV policy.

So, no human-written source is ever neutral.

So, the "NPOV source" in field of history is just a Wikipedia's newspeak meaning just "source which doesn't disagree with ME". However, the neutrality in Wikipedia is achieved by balancing differing POVs by quoting their major proponents and by doing so in emotion-free language.

Now, in this here subject there are two major POVs -- that there was no Polonisation whatsoever during 1795-1917, and that there actually was "some Polonisation". First POV is accounted for, with much reuse of quotes.

Now, one of the major proponents of the latter POV is Dovnar and he goes into much factual detail on this. We are not talking good/bad judgment here, and this just won't get more "modern" than that.

Therefore, this goes into article. Excepting the unlikely case of some source referring to the facts recounted by Dovnar and saying, like, "this actually meant not Polonisation but an early example of Somethingism". Then and only then we go to other (modern?) sources to represent the POV.

When Balcer talks about not assuming bad faith -- I'm saying, fine, but like I said before, the demands of blanket license to censor sources not on their own merit, but on the extra-scientifical factors, look bad, and are, in fact, against the NPOV policy, good faith or not. Yury Tarasievich 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A bit ofinformation about Polish attitude towards Belarus schools [17].Someone might find this useful.--Lokyz 22:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The article still needs improvement.

A lot of the text is simply OR based on quotes that contain no information that they are supposed to be referencing. Many sentences go beyond what is given in the text they are referenced to. Also 1-Stalinist era claims of Poles being privilaged in Russian Empire are still present. 2-Still too many claims from nationalist politician from XIX century that belonged to a an antipolish movement. --Molobo 21:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural genocide

Per Cultural genocide banning of the national language is a form of cultural genocide. Belarusian language was forbidden, all Belarusian schools were closed by Poles on 1937 in Western Belarus. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please start by providing reliable references for the use of such term in such a context. Language discrimination is not cultural genocide. PS. Please stop forking content in the article, paragraphs about Hrushevsky and land reform already exist in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article Cultural genocide and namel the definition of what it is by UN convention. Banning of the language is a form of it, I don't even speak about assimilation. Vlad fedorov (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Write an OR paper on this, publish it and cite it here. Till than, no WP:OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article on Cultural genocide exists and is sourced. What is contained in this article completely corresponds to Cultural genocide. What's your problem exaclty? Vlad fedorov (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable references must be provided and Vlad fedorov please do not use false edit summaries. Banned users can't edit. It is just impossible. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not banned, hence you see my signature. Hello there. What "false" summaries you claim there?Vlad fedorov (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the credentials this guy provides at his user page, he could be able to compose a piece or two based on his extremely strong opinions and personal experiences. Wikipedia welcomes knowledgeable users, but OR is strictly forbidden. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So dear Miacek, this is how you are discussing the content? Are you trying to provoke me like Russavia cooperating with other Cabal members? What you all three are doing there?Vlad fedorov (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vald, here is the false edit summary of yours: Piotrus, you are banned and you edit war. Revert.--Jacurek (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Problematic edits: 1) addition of POVed and unreferenced section headings and 2) removal of reliably referenced content. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Second one is very well sourced and there is absolutely no reason for removal.--Jacurek (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Cultural genocide" is nothing but emotionally loaded synonym for "assimilation". Wikipedia's preferred style is neutral language. Therefore I replaced "cultural genocide" by "polonization", which is actually the subject of the article. Still, you are welcome to provide references with opinions that Polonization included cultural genocide. - Altenmann >t 22:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There are few justified uses of cultural genocide, see Polish culture in WWII. But indeed, POV-pushing to call assimilation a cultural genocide is not unknown on Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Let us stick to article contents, not fingerpointing editing habits of wikipedians ad nauseam. - Altenmann >t 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)