# Talk:Paweł Jasienica

Since we all will die sooner or later, what is the basis of the statement that the Polish government's "persecution of him" caused his death? I didn't see any mention of this "fact", on the Polish language link. What's up? Dr. Dan 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess and I'd like to copy-edit it (rewrite some of it into English). What is a Russian Pole? Are there German Poles, Austrian Poles, Lithuanian Poles? Is this a language issue, that is escaping me; maybe the editor means Poles from the Russian partition. Needs clarification. Dr. Dan 03:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
A quick look at pl wiki gives interesting tidbits of info: he supported opposition youth protest in 1968 which caused the ban on his publications, he opposed censorship and his last wife was an SB informant (on him) before and after the marriage...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Piotrus keep in mind that the average English speaking person, has no idea what SB or UB, means, (secret police in communist Poland). Try to clarify these kind of matters in the future. Pawelku must have been really stupid, the SB really smart (not so, I tricked them several times), or this woman was really something special (a babe), to confuse his judgement. BTW, it was after reading the Polish WK article, that my initial objections to the quality of the English article were brought forth. Dr. Dan 05:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Dan, I was talking to you and I assumed you know it. Talk is not article where all notable things have to be ilinked and such. And yes, this article needs expantion, inline citations and copyedits... thanks for improving it so far.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Military History tag as article is out of scope.  The subject of the article served in the military, but is not notable for this military service but rather as a poet and dissident against the polish government. --dashiellx (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

@Nihil novi, thanks for revising this article further. I don't quite agree with this edit, however. Like any other part of bibliographic information, the place of publication is normally cited as stated on the book itself; i.e., if the place of publication is "Warszawa", it should remain "Warszawa", and not be "translated" as "Warsaw". The purpose of bibliographic information is to facilitate finding a book, not to draw the reader's attention to whatever beautiful place a book was published in. A semi-easter-egg link like [[Warsaw|Warszawa]] might be acceptable (if borderline). After all, in Polish, too, you would write "New York: New York University Press" [1], rather than "Nowy Jork: New York University Press" (or, Heaven forbid, "Nowy Jork: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu nowojorskiego"...).
While I'm at it, you also reinserted the link to the List of Poles. Does it really make much sense to add "see also" links to random lists of people with no connection to the person discussed in a given biographical article other than nationality? If not, why should it make sense in this particular article?  --Thorsten1 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the editing of the article.
I propose that English-country librarians be consulted regarding which version of title-page publication-city name to use, native or English. ("Warsaw" is the only Polish-city name that I cite in bibliographies or text in an English version.)
Granted that "List of Poles" is a sampling rather an exhaustive list of notable Poles, Jasienica might perhaps be considered for inclusion due to his prominence and recency. Nihil novi (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
"I propose that English-country librarians be consulted regarding which version of title-page publication-city name to use, native or English" I'd say you don't need to be a librarian to decide which version of a place of publication's name should be used. Still, if you doubt what I say, you can always verify it with someone you trust more. (And, of course, this is strictly about Warsaw, as no other Polish city actually has an English name.) As for your other question, I think you misunderstood that: I'm not saying Paweł Jasienica shouldn't be on List of Poles, but that List of Poles shouldn't be on Paweł Jasienica. --Thorsten1 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Nihil novi (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Because the people on the list, by default, will have no other connection with Jasienica than a shared nationality. Even if anyone should read this article and think "Oh, I wonder if there are any other Polish people on Wikipedia at all", they can easily find them, a. through the Poland article linked in this article, b. through the categories, such as Category:Polish historians and Category:Polish resistance fighters - after all, this is what categories are for. Most people have a specific nationality; despite this, we don't normally add "See also: List of [people with the same nationality]" at the bottom of biographies. At worst, this might suggest that being Polish is something so rare and/or strange that it must be given special treatment in the form of this link. I think this doesn't make much sense. --Thorsten1 (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I like them, but they 1) belong on Wikiquote and 2) are unreferenced. Hence, moving unref quotes here:

"My home is not my castle. I am not master of my own drawer."
"I once knew a man, a former Home Army cichociemny, who kept a diary.... Last I heard, he was mining coal not far from the North Pole."
"A man is defenseless against privileges."
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paweł Jasienica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found.
Linkrot: One found and tagged.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The lead is too short, it should fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD Not done
His grandfather from the father side, Ludwik Beynar, fought in the January Uprising, and married a Spanish woman, Joanna Adela Feugas "paternal side"? Done
 His granfather from the mother's side, Wiktor Maliszewski, fought in the November Uprising Spelling "grandfather", "maternal side" Done
Beynar's family lived in Russia and Ukraine Use the subject name as in the article name. Or move the article to his real name leaving a redirect. Not done
...he also worked as a speaker in the Polish Radio Wilno "on" Done
He also begun his career as the writer and essayist ungrammatical Done
In 1935 he debuted as an amateur historian Clumsy, suggest simpler "IN 1935 he wrote a book about.... Not done
In July 1944 he took part in the operation aimed at liberation of Wilno from the Germans "aimed at the liberation..." Not done
After recovering from his wounds, 1945 Beynar decided to leave the resistance, and instead begun publishing in an independent Catholic weekly  "began" Not done
OK, I am guessing that your first language is not English.  You need to get someone to copy-edit this article throughout.  It should not have been nominated with this poor prose.  You could try the WP:Guild of copyeditors, although their results can be variable - the Poland project may be able to help.
MoS criteria appear OK
List of works There should ideally be ISBNs for all post 1974 publications Not done
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Refs #8 and #9 (same target failed verification.[3]
Other references check out and appear to be RS, no evidence of OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Reasonable coverage
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
One image used, with correct license and caption.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
OK, on hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. You may wish to consider using Template:Infobox writer in the lead, but this is not a GA criterion. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Still several outstanding issues with the prose so I shall not be listing at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the refs and asked others to help with copyediting. I may be a bit busy over the next few days, and will check out your response as soon as I can. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
How is it going, do you want me to take another look? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we are mostly done, but another day or two may help, if I dig anything else up (just today I stumbled upon a useful web reference, for example). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  01:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I will leave it for a few days. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought others would've fixed the grammar issues. I addressed the remaining points, with the exception of the first one. Till his name change, I believe he should be referred to under his old (birth) name in the article. As his new name is much better known, the article should not be moved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paweł Jasienica/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ajh1492 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs some work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
see below
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Passed!


### Review comments
It's a first reading, I haven't finished yet. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Taking another cut at reading the article in detail, so there's more questions. Ajh1492 (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably want to go through the entire article applying proper articles (a, an, the). I'll try to do some of it too :). Ajh1492 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Lede
Needs to be significantly longer, isn't compelling enough to want to read the rest of the article
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Life
Consider breaking up into subsections. It's a big mass of text that needs a little organization.
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
What happened to his first wife? we hear that she is in Vilnius after WWII then no further word.
I cannot find anything on that in the sources accessible to me (online). If you find any source that has more to say on his wife, do let me know. I admit I have not read his diaries, nor the biographies from further reading (which I'd have done if this article was up for a FA). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
While in temporary prisoner of war camp in Opatów, he was able to escape from it with the help of some old school friends from the time his family lived there in early 1920s.[2] - the sentence structure is a little clunky.
In 1948 he was arrested by the Polish secret police (Polish: Urząd Bezpieczeństwa) but was released after the intervention of Bolesław Piasecki from the PAX Association. In gratitude to Piasecki, he worked with PAX in the future, leaving Tygodnik Powszechny for PAX in 1950. - I'm confused on when he was released since you cite being arrested in 1948, but then going to work for PAX in 1950. You might want to rework this passage for better structure.
Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
From at least till period till his death he would live in Warsaw.' - Huh? too many tills, you're making my head spin :)
Fixed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you really want to leave that many red links in the entire article?
Per WP:RED, red is good. So yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Did he take it as a pen name or legally change his name, it's not clear in the article.
I don't think the sources are very clear on that, unfortunately. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  03:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Both Michnik and Samsonowicz note how Jasienica's works contain hidden messages in which Jasienica discusses more contemporary history.[8][17] - That's an interesting fact that you might want to cite an example of, assuming there is an easy one to cite ....
That was already discussed few paragraphs above, but I added a reminder about his most prominent "hidden message" book. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Bibliography
what about calling the section Published works?
I have no feelings on that; if you think it would be better, please go ahead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Awards
Order of Polonia Restituta, Grand Cross, awarded twice (3 May 2007 and 1 March 2011), posthumously - why was it awarded twice?
Fixed, per pl wiki, it was awarded only once. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
References
why not rename to References
You meant Notes. Renamed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
reference 6 link is broken
[4] works for me, but takes a moment to load through some new script at the archive.org. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
check to make sure you have a language tag on all the references (#9 is missing one)
Added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
reference 10 link is broken
Also works, same archive.org issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)